The Power of the Sun

I recently happened to hear a discussion the radio amongst a group of people arguing against hydraulic fracturing (fracking).  For those of you less familiar with this technology, it is essentially a method that uses high pressure water and chemicals to cause cracks in what is very hard rock (see a good graphic by a site otherwise opposed to fracking).  This hard rock, shale, also contains natural gas.  Without the benefit of the cracks opening up more pathways for the gas, the production (rate) from shale would be too low to justify the expense.  With fracking however, production from shale has virtually all of a sudden become viable.  Most importantly, enormous tracts of shale that have been known to exist for a very long time such as the Marcellus and Barnett shale formations have become major gas producing regions.  This has had two very important (and related) effects:

1. The price of natural gas has plummeted.  This is mostly driven by supply but a weak demand due to reduced industrial activity (something to do with the recession) and a warmer winter last year (something blamed on global warming) has not helped.
2. The US now has a very abundant source of domestic energy.  This has been a rallying cry for many groups and now natural gas offers that solution where the US should be able to sustain itself for a few decades.  At least when it comes to energy.

Back to that discussion on radio - this group was vociferously against fracking and pointing out the many supposed issues with it.  As I pointed out in my previous post, I am fine with the discussion, however I want to hear solutions and options.  If an intelligent group is going to take our time with their views then it should further society's discussion on this topic.  As listed above, fracking has produced some very tangible benefits; benefits that this country has needed.  So if we are going to stop fracking then the alternative should be able to similarly solve the problem.  Fortunately, the host towards the end asked the group what the alternative would be.  What are our options for providing the electricity to power our homes, manufacture our goods, perhaps fuel our cars, and host that very radio show?  There was some ho'ing and humming, after which one guest said, "...well there's solar.  For example a school in NYC has installed solar panels on its roof and now gets part of its electricity from those panels."

So there you have it.  We will produce our electricity needs from solar.  The US generated 416.5 million MWhrs (megawatt-hours) of electricity in Jul 2012 (Energy Information Agency).  With 744 hours in the month of July, that is equivalent to 560 GW of power generation capacity cranking out electricity 24/7.  Note: the US has over a 1000 GW of generation capacity.  If we are to reduce our requirement for natural gas (responsible for ~415 GW of that capacity), then solar power would have to produce at least a measurable percentage of this, preferably with the same reliability and at the same cost.  I agree that technology may or will improve so let us not focus on cost or reliability (as important as they are).  Let us instead look at the amount of solar energy available.  The map below is the "solar resource" or insolation in the US.  The northeast (including NY) is at about 4 kWhr/m2/day while the southwest is the highest with around 7 kWhr/m2/day.  

Source: National Renewable Energy Lab (www.nrel.gov) - US DOE

Let's do the math.  At the highest insolation - 7 kWhr/m2/day, we can generate 210 kWhr of electricity for every square meter of solar panel per month.  So if we wanted to generate the 416.5 billion kWhr of electricity that was consumed in July from solar panels, we would need nearly 2 BILLION square meters, or 200,000 square km of solar panels.   To put this number in perspective, the entire state of Nebraska is 200,000 square km.  Arizona, which has the highest solar insolation is a little bigger at 295,000 square km.  So if we wanted to power the US with solar power, we would have to virtually empty out Arizona and cover it with solar panels.  This number does not even take into account the area that would be required to store the solar power for use at night.  And this is idealized based on the the total amount of solar energy available without any consideration for the inefficiencies of the solar system.

I wish to be clear, solving our energy needs will require a solution that encompasses all options.  Renewables like solar and wind have a place and are great options for where it makes sense (small residential use, water heaters, light non-essential utilities, etc).  Where they do not make sense is grid level power generation on a massive scale.  They do not make sense on cost, land use, or reliability.  I am happy to continue investing a limited amount of my tax dollars funding the development of these technologies, but they cannot be touted as THE solution to our energy needs.  Until something else truly novel is discovered, the solution is offered by a mix of natural gas and nuclear.  Think about this the next time you power up the device you just read this on.

The Crown of India

Current map of Kashmir indicating the various regions under different administrations. The entire area within the thicker black border was the Kingdom of Kashmir under Hari Singh (Source: Indian Defense Review)

Few issues dominate Indian foreign policy like Kashmir.  For as long as modern India has existed, Kashmir has been a thorny issue and I suspect it is likely to be so for many decades to come.  It has been the cause of at least three wars and innumerable skirmishes.  It has been described as a tinderbox given its ability to initiate war between two nuclear powers.  It has been a practice ground for Islamic militants, most of them non-Kashmiri.  Most of all, it is the place where two groups with everything in common except religion come together.  Many blame the Kashmir issue on Pakistan and the creation of Pakistan in the first place.  This is a rather interesting point.  For while Pakistan is certainly the cause of most of the problems today, the problem cannot be blamed on its creation.  In fact, it is interesting to note that there was perhaps no way for Kashmir to have ever been a peaceful region, a Switzerland of sorts.  To understand this, perhaps a little recap of history is helpful.

As we all know of course, when the British left India, they gave the princely kingdoms the choice to either side with India, side with Pakistan, or become independent.  While the vast majority went one way or the other, Kashmir (or rather its king Hari Singh) chose independence.  So, if nothing further had happened, Kashmir today would have been an independent country nestled in the Himalayas between India, Pakistan, and China.  I imagine it to have been much like Bhutan, except Muslim.  Except for a few things of course.  First, India rejected the notion of breaking up the nation.  Our founders had dreamt of and fought for a united India as it had culturally existed for centuries.  The British were bringing up this issue of multiple nations at the last minute.  So a Balkanisation of India was completely contrary to the Independence movement.  Nevertheless, a Pakistan was being formed as a supposed home to the Muslims of the subcontinent, never mind that India would continue to have more Muslims.  Since Pakistan saw itself as the natural nation for all Muslims, it was only fitting that Muslim majority Kashmir should join it.  After all, what need is there for "one home" for Muslims if each Muslim majority region became its own country.  Most importantly, what was preventing other regions within Pakistan, often with little but religion in common, from forming their own little countries.  For example, why shouldn't there become countries such as Balochistan, Sind, West Punjab, and Pashtunistan?  So an independent Kashmir brought into question the very idea of Pakistan.  On the other hand, India's founding fathers envisioned a secular country for all people of the subcontinent.  For them India was not a country of Hindus and not defined by religion in any way.  It was the home for all inhabitants of the Indian subcontinent.  An independent Kashmir or a Kashmir as part of Pakistan threatened the very concept.  It would be admitting that people of different religions or different regions cannot be under one central India.  In other words, it brought into question the very idea of a unified India. 

Now imagine if Jinnah and the Muslim League had never existed to demand a Pakistan.  Such what-if scenarios are fascinating to me and in future posts I wish to explore this concept further.  You will be amazed at how different our world (and yes, not just the region) would have been today had one man not lived.  But sticking to Kashmir, I feel that had Pakistan not been formed, Kashmir would have become an independent country.  I am sure the Indian government would have tried to coax it into joining the union as it did with other princely kingdoms.  As much as I idol worship Sardar Patel, I think even a man of his abilities would have failed to bring Kashmir into the fold.

There are three possible scenarios I envision:

1. Kashmir would have remained independent but with great internal strife with three religions and being landlocked.  I imagine that such a Kashmir would have been roped into the Cold War with Communist Russia attempting to depose the king and Western countries attempting to bring democracy.  Having to virtually conduct all its trade through an India that resented its existence would not have helped.
2. China would have invaded it during its invasion of Tibet and at the very least taken the regions of Aksai Chin, Leh, and Ladakh, if not the entire country itself.  We would have then seen the kind of freedom struggle we are seeing today in Tibet.  Except it is likely to have been way more violent as it would have been fought not by otherwise peaceful Buddhist monks but militant Muslims supported by international jihadi groups and other groups covertly supported by India.
3. India would have invaded it to take it by force.  It would have then existed as a part of India but with a simmering separatist movement supported again by the Chinese government, international jihadi organizations, and perhaps local groups dreaming of a Switzerland of the East.

In all three scenarios, Kashmir would have been far from the gorgeous valley that I remember from my visit in 1989.  I have painted a rather grim picture of a region that is without doubt one of the most beautiful parts of the world inhabited by a beautiful peaceful people.  This is however the fact of reality, that as humans we have found a way to make a fight for God, King, and Country paramount in our lives.  To be sure, I do not think the future need be this grim.  I hate to leave the post here, but will do so to not only maintain brevity but leave you with food for thought.  The fact is that none of the three scenarios presented above happened, and Kashmir finds itself pulled in different directions.  I remain hopeful and confident that Kashmir will soon become a proud region and once again take over the mantle it held for millenia - The Crown of India.