The Subject matter is all over the World facing Energy problem, So I am trying to
Explain an idea for Old & New Dams / Reservoirs Hydro electric projects Civil Design Geometry
Can be modifying in Architectural Transition to increase our energy potential. Because we are
Losing heavy quantum of already storage water in our Big Dams and its relevant projects to generate Hydro Electric old technology, Now it must be need to convert into new theory of Scientific Technology as per utilizing in the way of experiment with foreign expertise at any Hydro electric base Model of concern Department or forum to finalize the following unique and entire world Globalize developing idea for its further implementations in the current ongoing and next coming future Hydel projects as soon as possible.

Thanks.

with best regards.

RE: Planet of Earth Energy Crisis.

Dear Sir,

Thank you very much for your interest in proposed idea consideration, Due to other sectors & individuals responses take to my self need to be consult a proper forum regarding the situation now I am able to communicate with your good self. Also sorry for some days delaying answer from my side.

Please consider some point of views as following:

1. Idea come into my mind Last year. Some discussions with local personals in respective field but not proper and positive response yet.
2. Research papers / abstracts need to be develop after consultations subject mater from foreign expertise as like your consideration of interest.
3. Theories & ideas can be implement upon debating at world wide conversations with its facts and figures must be considered.
4. It doesn’t mean that my self have no proper proposal for describing because this one is a serous issue for entire world to escaping the current energy crises.
5. Mechanism / Methodology of idea to implement with Design criteria must be Liaise in near future as well as your kind and positive action.
6. My self keep this idea to preventing not go towards wrong ways, Sir your good self know better to me very well. Because after all it is the property of whole world and its creatures, Which will be fully utilize upon when enhance the capability of electrical energy generate according to the new term of way.

Sir about my CV.

My Name is Shabbir.
Qualification: School certificate.
After this go toward Technical Course for Surveyor in 1982.
Then start as Land Surveyor Jobs in different Companies in Pakistan.
During in 30 years jobs mostly work on Topographic & as built Surveys.
Observations & Knowledge come through different Projects and Sites in the due course of my whole life.

Thanks.

Hoping for a positive response will be coming soon as well as your good self reply.

with best regards.

Shabbir (Land Surveyor)

Dear Sir

Subject mater all our the World facing Energy problem So I am try to explain a idea for Old & New Dams / Reservoirs Hydel Civil Design can move in architectural Transition to increase our energy potential Because we are losing heavy quantum of already storage water in our Big Dams to generate past technology now need to convert into New theory of Technology.

Thanks.

with best regards.

Regardless of what you may think science is “supposed to be”, it has never been and will never be politically neutral. Science is not conducted in a vacuum (insert Torricelli joke here), it is a social activity and pertains to society’s past and future. If it did not (which would be impossible), it would be irrelevant.

Actually I hear this argument all the time and am convinced that, unless you are extremely naive, you are using it as an excuse for why society should further conduct YOUR view of science. Thomas Kuhn pointed out as much in his book “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” over forty years ago.

—

More controversially, I would suggest that scientific programs should not even be given the benefit of presumed innocence. Weapons researchers and marketing psychologists use this one often: “It wasn’t us who pulled the trigger or pressed the button!”, “It wasn’t us who sold the high fructose corn syrup to the toddlers!”

“Innocent until proven guilty” works well for the legal system because there is less harm done to society as a whole if we let an individual murderer go free than if we execute an innocent man. It does not work well for science, because obtaining “proof” that a scientific program has harmed or will harm society is much more difficult, and the societal risks much larger.

CFC’s were no doubt originally considered “good” for society by providing efficient refridgeration for the masses, but we now know enough to have banned them. Unfortunately, in the interim serious damage was done to the ozone layer.

On the other hand, does global climate change need to be proven beyond “any reasonable doubt” before we realize the danger of overconsumption of carbon-heavy energy sources? Presumed innocence of coal-fired power plants and mass-produced gasoline-powered cars may well come round to bite us in the ass, as we are currently discovering.

Instead we should be putting MORE resources into scientifically investigating the ramifications of our actions as a scientifically advanced society. The best science available to us, honestly communicated to the public and government officials in a timely manner, is the only way we can move forward responsibly. Too many of our resources are currently being devoted to immediately “profitable” scientific research, while programs to gauge the environmental and socioeconomic consequences of these discoveries are neglected or suppressed.

This will of course in no way guarantee our success as a society, but to do otherwise would be irresponsible.

In a society that considers itself based on personal freedoms, forcing solutions that doesn’t have the backing of its citizens is foolhardy. To illustrate this point, I will use the former French Superphénix breeder reactor as an example. While favour for the widespread use of nuclear power in France must be higher than here, a terrorist rocket attack was launched on it during construction by anti-nuclear activists. I’m not saying that higher public acceptance would necessarily stop fringe groups from attempting such actions, but it would have made punishing such actions easier for the government of France.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superph%C3%A9nix

I believe it is immoral to spend large quantities of tax dollars supporting technologies that your citizens are against without attempting a substantial education campaign, finding what true reasons the people are against it and helping to erase the myths other may be clinging to. In such a truthful campaign, even some formerly pro-nuclear people may switch sides once they were truely aware of what risks and costs it entails. That is the cost of a truthful dialogue with your citizens.

The use of nuclear, wind, or solar combined with compressed air, hydrostatic, or other methods of energy storage is very capable of supplying the demands of large scale users using today’s technology, it is the complexity and associated higher cost that stalls the implementation of such things. A lot of people critical of low carbon energy sources cite the fact that these energy options are not yet as cheap as coal as a reason that they are unsatisfactory, but it will take a substantially honed technology to produce electricity cheaper than an already established industry of effectively burning flammable dirt.

Whether something is socially acceptable is an extremely poor basis for such conclusions re: nuclear power, wouldn’t you say?
Why is it that people for or against somethng seem to think they are right just because someone has simply stirred up hornets?

Curious that while young Kyle admits that fossil fuels for power generation are less desireable than nuclear options, he does not advance any real science to demonstrate either the effectiveness or efficiency of other alternatives that would or even could meet demand by current commercial or industrial users…

Is not science – at least – supposed to be neutral!? Or perhaps innocent until proven guilty?