India: Scenario 2019

Part 5 of series on #modiplan

——————————————————-

Links to previous posts in this series

Criticism of Modi Sarkar:  https://raverantreflect.wordpress.com/2015/11/30/modi-sarkar-areas-of-my-concern/

In praise of Modi Sarkar:  https://raverantreflect.wordpress.com/2015/11/28/modi-sarkar-priority-security-and-economy/

My expectations from Modi Sarkar:  https://raverantreflect.wordpress.com/2015/11/25/pm-modi-my-expectations/

PM Modi’s confounds both critics and admirers:  https://raverantreflect.wordpress.com/2015/11/21/pm-modi-confounding-critics-and-admirers/

————————————————————

I will try to paint a plausible scenario of 2019 here. I will follow it up with what might be PM Modi’s game plan in my next post.

Excerpts from article https://raverantreflect.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/pm-modis-game-planver1.pdf published on Oct 8, 2015 and some updates . The above article was written before the Bihar Elections and the stunning defeat of Modi.

Update 9December 3, 2015) : Gujarat civic polls has seen BJP maintaining its hold in urban areas while Congress has made inroads in rural areas.

Likely scenario of 2019

From the above directional analysis it is very likely that India will do well (by 2019) in external security, economic growth, infrastructure development, social inclusion and job creation. The job creation, won’t be to the fullest potential due to some the above directional issues.

Based on what we know today, we will generate a much higher proportion of the so called clean energy but we are not likely to have cleaner air, water, and food. Many more people will have food. We will have more jobs but we will spend hours battling traffic on two wheelers. The smart cities when they come to exist risk being swamped by migration from farm lands. (because of lack of reforms in agriculture sector)

Today’s poor will have more and will be economically empowered. There will be less corruption, but we will not be yet moving to be a just society in which a poor man can knock the doors of justice and get it. The poor will get to consume more (that is good) but the greed of everyone else will continue increase. We will have green highways (trees along it) but our farmlands and hinterlands may remain barren.

The minorities may still continue to live in imaginary fear thanks to Congress, its clones and its supplicant media. India will not have discovered its Hindu* civilization soul. It would not have known its true history. It would not have known what was wrong about its past and what was good.  We will continue to be fed by, what Arun Shourie describes as Macaulay’s and Lenin’s Offspring (Indian intellectuals) and their respective overseas masters.

Modi will not have dented Congress culture** much whether in political or in economic space. Congress Mukta Bharat will not have been a reality by 2019.

BJP: (added this section on December 7, 2015)

The state of the BJP will be crucial if Modi is to win a second term in 2019. It is subject for a separate post, but here are some ‘directional’ clues:

  1. It was ineffective as opposition (barring Ayodhya movement and 2g \ Coalgate blockade of Parliament in 2013\ 2014)
  2. It is ineffective as a ruling party at center despite absolute majority. Same in states where it is power.
  3. Despite a record membership size BJP can’t mobilize public opinion. It allowed Congress to run away with ‘intolerance’ campaign based on sheer lies.
  4. It’s spokespersons barring exceptions are weak, inarticulate, fumbling type.
  5. It has allowed its social media expertise to evaporate \ migrate
  6. Most of its MPs and MLA’s are sleeping and inaccessible.
  7. Its bad performances in Bihar polls and Gujarat rural local body elections are guides to its future

Modi, despite his government’s good work,  will probably have to carry the NJP’s burden on his shoulders in 2019 too.

Modi’s chances in 2019

Given the above scenario, what are the chances of Modi Govt getting reelected in 2019? What more might Modi Sarkar do?  I will explore these questions in my next post.

Notes:

* The word Hindu or Hinduism stands for the essence of our civilization -every human has a right and duty (Dharma) to seek own truth (God). All paths lead there.  The Sanskrit word ‘Dharma‘ means duty unto oneself. It doesn’t point any particular form of God, customs, codes, or laws. All these change and must change depending on context. That’s why Hindus have crores of Gods and more are welcome. That no one has right to kill, convert, or harass others on the basis a preferred god is implicit in the essence of Hinduism.

One can also use the word Sanatana Dharma or Vedik Dharma. Sanatana means eternal (not old). Vedas and much of the Hindu philosophical and social literature have been the earliest and the longest surving, and biggest open source endeavors known to mankind. One excellent resource is Portrait Of A Nation: History Of Ancient India by Kamlesh Kapur They aren’t old fashioned at all. In fact are they are more modern, progressive, and relevant today than the words like ‘tolerance’ ‘secular’ ‘plural’ etc -which are so limited.

** Congress culture: The culture of dividing and fragmenting on the basis of everything religion (partition), caste (reservations), languages (linguistic re-organization of states), ethnicity. The culture designing and perpetuating complicated system of controls, sops, exemptions, and discretionary powers for favoring or punishing. The culture of detesting anything that is Hindu and anything that predates the Muslim and British invaders.

Nut Neutrality -2

You have media houses like Times Group, NDTV  supporting net neutrality. You telecom operators like Airtel saying that they are not opposed to net neutrality and they don’t plan to throttle or block content. Then you have internet social sites like facebook and google wanting it for obvious reason. You have the e-commerce sites like flipkart and cleartrip now suddenly discovering that they were on the ‘wrong’ side. If everybody is agreeing to ‘it’, what is the problem, you will ask.

That is what our telecom industry man TRAI  cheief Khullar is saying :

In exclusive comments to the Indian Express, TRAI chief Telecom regulator Rahul Khullar had also said that the furore had been sparked off by a ‘ corporate war’ between a media house and a telecom operator, which is ” confounding already difficult matters”. (source Firstpost ). Lo, he is confounded‘. The man whom we pay to be stay clear of corporate wars take an informed stand for larger public good is confounded!  Whether he is genuinely confounded or not is another matter. Read this:

“It looks like Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI), in its consultation paper, has copy-pasted from submissions of telcos. India has a robust and at times, overbearing IT Act,” IAMAI President Subho Ray was quoted as saying by PTI. “

I call ‘Net neutrality’ as ‘it‘ because it defies definition much like secularism, freedom of expression etc. Even the Congress supports it now! Since the devil is in details it is best to lay down clear principles (see https://raverantreflect.wordpress.com/2015/04/15/nut-neutrality/ ) We can’t depend on assurances of Airtel Chief or some other corporate bosses. They have their respective jobs to do.

All the above corporate lobbies have one thing in common: build something and seek rents. These rentiers care two hoots for your or mine privacy, unfettered and un-influenced access to internet.  All these companies may have their own rent  seeking business models. But public policy can’t be decided by their business models. We expect Khullar to not just to stay neutral but also to be competent and well informed to form an independent policy which will uphold public good.

We also expect RS Prasad, Minister of Communications and Information Technology to stand when a confounded Khullar fails. Can we expect that?

 

Nut Neutrality!

These are the days! Movies hit 100 crore jackpot in days. Samsung and Apple sell millions of smartphones each costing more than a bike in weeks. Apps and songs downloads hit million mark in days. Videos go viral infecting millions in minutes. By the time you realize something is a hit, it was a hit. By the time you open your morning newspaper the news it carries are stale. I wasn’t looking and this Nut Neutrality hit the ceiling. Flipkart supported Airtel in its nut plans and withdrew it at a speed that will put the likes of Mulayam to shame. Since I am deeply suspicious of anything that Airtel does -I think they mix up my MB downloads and re-lable them as GB – I was instinctively ‘inclined’ to ‘neutrality’.

But what got me annoyed was -Vishal Dadlani, Diggy, TOI, Rajdeep, and Barkha were also dropping their secularism and ‘siding’ with ‘neutrality’ even though there are clear signs that Ravishankar Prasad and Modi Sarkar are going to lean towards neutrality.

To add to my confusion it seems that TRAI is opposing it. Now TRAI being a body ‘representing’ telecom operators, as a customer my views are by default opposite of TRAI on most matters -until I verify and change my stand.

So here I am stranded helplessly, deciding which side of the nut I would prefer. My problem is compounded because everyone supports it like they supported the reservation policy, Haj Subsidy, Old Land Acquisition Bill,  and The Climate Science blaming Carbon. Unanimity of this kind makes me uncomfortable.

Therefore I decided to chuck the word neutrality. Here is what I want:

1. The internet is a public good, public utility like water or roads. No one except the public can own it and do to it what they please. Every private or government party has been licensed to build it, provide it, and charge money in return.

2. The internet protocols are by definition neutral or agnostic to what data (or content) they transport and it is open. That is the reason it has grown, become enormously useful, and is now a public utility. Differentiating the data streams according the content inherently violates this basic foundation.

3.  We wish to pay for our internet use. If you want to give it free you should do it without disturbing internet’s technical structure -it means you can’t sniff data packets to adjust your cash counters. We don’t want such innovation.

4. If you invest in building internet infrastructure you should do this according to your business plans. Don’t expect us to agree to change public policy just because you will make losses or make less profits. You got internet service licence, stick to its terms. Nobody forced you bid those high prices for spectrum. Nobody forced you to take on additional subscribers without having spectrum and infrastructure in place. So stop cribbing about your losses and pay attention to voice and data quality.

5.  We need good service from you the telecom operators. And open your data download metering to public scrutiny.

6. By the way, when I watch video on youtube your data meters start spinning wildly -so what are you complaining about?

7. It is not inconceivable given your (telecom operators and other tech giants like google, IBM..) ‘innovative streak’ you may already be throttling \ speeding some content based your business model(s) without anyone looking. In the US, Comcast was hauled over coals for blocking some content. I recall I used to face huge problems in accessing some web sites ( twitter.com, linkedin.com) on PC, while their app versions worked like charm on my mobile. Was it because twitter and linkedin wanted to promote their apps, like every e-commerce site wants to promote app use (you can steal a lot user data from mobile)? Did they pay you guys? Looks suspicious.

Now stop being Nuts and don’t sniff and snuff my data.

But I know that unless the the TRAI is overhauled and unless Mr. Khullar is shown the door you (telecom and tech companies) can do what you please.

About being ‘Green’

I received this piece from a friend. Credits: unnamed author.

—————————

Checking out at the store, the young cashier suggested to the much older lady that she should bring her own grocery bags, because plastic bags are not good for the environment.

The woman apologized to the young girl and explained, “We didn’t have this ‘green thing’ back in my earlier days.”

The young clerk responded, “That’s our problem today. Your generation did not care enough to save our environment for future generations.”

The older lady said that she was right — our generation didn’t have the “green thing” in its day. The older lady went on to explain:

Back then, we returned milk bottles, soda bottles and beer bottles to the store. The store sent them back to the plant to be washed and sterilized and refilled, so it could use the same bottles over and over. So they really were recycled. But we didn’t have the “green thing” back in our day.

Grocery stores bagged our groceries in brown paper bags that we reused for numerous things. Most memorable besides household garbage bags was the use of brown paper bags as book covers for our school books. This was to ensure that public property (the books provided for our use by the school) was not defaced by our scribblings. Then we were able to personalize our books on the brown paper bags. But, too bad we didn’t do the “green thing” back then.

We walked up stairs because we didn’t have an escalator in every store and office building. We walked to the grocery store and didn’t climb into a 300-horsepower machine every time we had to go two blocks.

But she was right. We didn’t have the “green thing” in our day.

Back then we washed the baby’s diapers because we didn’t have the throw away kind. We dried clothes on a line, not in an energy-gobbling machine burning up 220volts. Wind and solar power really did dry our clothes back in our early days. Kids got hand-me-down clothes from their brothers or sisters, not always brand-new clothing.

But that young lady is right; we didn’t have the “greenthing” back in our day.
Back then we had one TV, or radio, in the house — not a TV in every room. And the TV had a small screen the size of a handkerchief(remember them?), not a screen the size of the state of Montana. In the kitchen we blended and stirred by hand because we didn’t have electric machines to do everything for us. When we packaged a fragile item to send in the mail, we used wadded up oldnewspapers to cushion it, not Styrofoam or plastic bubble wrap. Back then, we didn’t fire up an engine and burn gasoline just to cut the lawn. We used a push mower that ran on human power. We exercised by working so we didn’t need to go to a health club to run on treadmills that operate on electricity.

But she’s right; we didn’t have the “green thing” back then.

We drank from a fountain when we were thirsty instead of using a cup or a plastic bottle every time we had a drink of water. We refilled writing pens with ink instead of buying a new pen, and we replaced the razor blade in a r azor instead of throwing away the whole razor just because the blade got dull..

But we didn’t have the “green thing” back then.

Back then, people took the streetcar or a bus and kids rode their bikes to school or walked instead of turning their moms into a 24-hour taxi service in the family’s $45,000 SUV or van, which cost what a whole house did before the”green thing.” We had one electrical outlet in a room, not an entire bank of sockets to power a dozen appliances. And we didn’t need a computerized gadget to receive a signal beamed from satellites 23,000 miles out in space in order to find the nearest burger joint.

But isn’t it sad the current generation laments how wasteful we old folks were just because we didn’t have the “green thing” back then?

Please forward this on to another selfish old person who needs a lesson in conservation from a smart ass young person.

We don’t like being old in the first place, so it doesn’t take much to piss us off… Especially from a tattooed, multiple pierced smartass who can’t make change without the cash register telling them how much.

——————————–

Wind energy. Is it green?

By ‘green’ we mean more efficient and less polluting. What is true of energy derived from sun rays is true of wind energy as well. Wind is clearly at a much higher entropy* level than coal is. Therefore we can extract much lower level of energy contained in wind than that in coal. The part of wind energy that can’t be harnessed for doing useful work will get dissipated in the form of vibrations caused by forces (other than those help in rotating the turbine) on wind turbine’s blades, bearings and support structure.

Since wind doesn’t flow at constant speed additional energy losses will take place in acceleration and deceleration of the wind turbine. It is easier to burn coal, for example, at reasonably constant rate.

The much higher entropy in wind (changing speeds, cross directions, turbulence) and sun rays (scattered rays, wavelengths outside electron flow generating quantum bands, changing directions) make them decidedly less efficient than fossil fuels. Energy which can’t be extracted as useful work ends as waste heat.

Heat recovery may seem like a solution, but here too heat is in the form of radiation and convection of air. It is at higher entropy level than heat in the form of say flame(highly concentrated). So we are back at the game of diminishing energy utility.

Wind and solar energy may seem to be free and green but clearly they aren’t.

I will return to the pollution aspect the above energy sources in another post.

*entropy is a measure of disorderliness. For example, Gas has higher entropy than liquid which in turn has higher entropy than solids.

Is Solar Energy Green?

The idea that energy can be converted (not created) from one form into another fits in our intuition. We are willing to accept that we can not get more energy than the energy contained in the source. We also know that during conversion some energy is lost to heat or friction (in case of moving systems). We aren’t however clear about the the logical conclusion of these two statements.

Energy is convertible (e.g. coal to heat, water dam to turbine’s spinning etc.) but it isn’t freely convertible. The process of energy conversion is governed by the second law of thermodynamics which states the entropy (a measure of ‘disorder’) of a closed system always increases during the conversion. Water that is neatly ‘arranged’ in a dam is flowing in a stream (less arranged, more disorderly than still water). We can not put it back in ‘arranged’ form in its original place without pumping it back or without putting more energy into it than what we got out of its running down.  We can’t use the heat we obtained by burning coal to put it (the ash) back into the form of coal. The energy lost in the form of heat or friction corresponds to increase in disorderliness.

If we apply the above principles we can understand that energy of one kind cannot be regarded as equivalent to energy of another kind. For example, one joule of solar energy has a smaller ability to do work then one joule of energy contained in coal, since the coal energy is more concentrated than the solar energy. Whenever we try to extract energy from sun rays some energy gets lost as heat.  Bigger solar panels catching more sun rays will generate more heat. There are thermodynamic and quantum limits to efficiency of solar panels.

‘Better’ solar cells too involve manufacturing that is dependent on and presupposes the existence of a complex global industrial manufacturing system. This comprises not only the fabrication systems typically accounted for in estimates of manufacturing energy, but the contingent mining, refining and global transportation systems, as well as other energy intensive critical support systems including finance, information, and security systems. The uncertainty of that energy component confers uncertainty on any estimate of payback times derived from that estimate, considered by some to be significant.

We will substitute one form of mining by another, we will re-distribute heat loss between point of manufacture and consumption if we substitute coal energy by solar energy.

Solar energy may seem to be clean (and even free) if we don’t take into account energy used in manufacture, transportation, installation, and regular cleaning of panels. But it isn’t.  It also generates heat.

According  to The second law of thermodynamics coal as an energy source is more efficient therefore more ‘green’ than the solar energy. Geological forces acting over forests buried in earthquakes tens of thousand of years have concentrated energy in coal in compact (lower entropy) form than the sun rays.

I will try to cover other issues (not directly related to Physics) related to use of coal or fossil fuels (or even solar panels) at some other time.

I know there will be protests by the greens over this. But I would welcome discussion based of physics. That will be enlightening.

The ‘green’ electric vehicles

Clearly an industry lobby is at work here. It beats me, how electric vehicles can be qualified as green.

image source wikipedia

image source wikipedia

To be called ‘green’ any gadget or technology should be clearly more energy efficient and less polluting than more established alternatives. Electric vehicles don’t pollute the air on the roads. But from where the energy for charging batteries comes from? If you consider all the conversion and transmission losses from the generating station thousands of miles away to the battery charging station in a city much more additional electrical energy needs to be generated. So you just shift pollution from roads to a power stations usually running on coal.  Costs and pollution hazards due to chemicals used in batteries is another factor. Moreover, traditional petrol and diesel vehicles are becoming less and less polluting as laws are being tightened.

GM and Mahindra of the auto world would be happy get tax breaks on these vehicles for their Volt and Reva. but I don’t see any logic. I have no problem with electric vehicles being around as an option to traditional vehicles.

Tax dollars or Rupees are better spent on public transport support because it much more energy efficient, it reduces road congestion, lowers pollution per capita and therefore it must have preemptive right over tax concessions.