<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Chief Entrepreneur</title>
	<atom:link href="http://gfederas.com/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://gfederas.com</link>
	<description>Entrepreneurship Innovation and Business Optimization</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 22 Apr 2012 17:22:57 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>California Governor Brown Orders Charging Stations For 1.5 Million EVs</title>
		<link>http://gfederas.com/innovation</link>
		<comments>http://gfederas.com/innovation#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Mar 2012 05:14:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Gint Federas</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[EV]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gfederas.com/?p=428</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Governor Jerry Brown joined with the California Public Utilities Commission to announce a $120 million dollar settlement with NRG Energy Inc. that will fund the construction of a statewide network of charging stations for zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs), including at least 200 public fast-charging stations and another 10,000 plug-in units at 1,000 locations across the state. [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Governor Jerry Brown joined with the California Public Utilities Commission to announce a $120 million dollar settlement with NRG Energy Inc. that will fund the construction of a statewide network of charging stations for zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs), including at least 200 public fast-charging stations and another 10,000 plug-in units at 1,000 locations across the state.</p>
<p>The Executive Order issued by the Governor sets the following targets:</p>
<p>• By 2015, all major cities in California will have adequate infrastructure and be “zero-emission vehicle ready”;</p>
<p>• By 2020, the state will have established adequate infrastructure to support 1 million zero-emission vehicles in California;</p>
<p>• By 2025, there will be 1.5 million zero-emission vehicles on the road in California; and</p>
<p>• By 2050, virtually all personal transportation in the State will be based on zero-emission vehicles, and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector will be reduced by 80 percent below 1990 levels.</p>
<p>AB32, the 2006 Global Warming Solutions Act, calls for a 30 percent reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. The goal of 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 was set by an executive order signed by former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.</p>
<p>Last year, Governor Brown signed SB X1-2, which directed the California Air Resources Board to adopt regulations setting a 33 percent renewable energy target.<br />
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://gfederas.com/innovation/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>9 Surprising Things about People who go Solar</title>
		<link>http://gfederas.com/innovation</link>
		<comments>http://gfederas.com/innovation#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Mar 2012 00:55:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Gint Federas</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[EV]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gfederas.com/?p=425</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Home Solar Power Discounts &#8211; One Block Off the Grid]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href='http://1bog.org/blog/infographic-9-surprising-things-about-people-who-go-solar/'><img title='Infographic: 9 Surprising Things About People Who Go Solar' src='http://1bog.org/files/2012/03/Infographic-9-Surprising-Things-About-People-Who-Go-Solar.png' width='undefined' height='undefined' alt='' /></a></p>
<p><a href='http://1bog.org/'>Home Solar Power Discounts</a> &#8211; One Block Off the Grid<br />
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://gfederas.com/innovation/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Zuckerberg: The Hacker Way</title>
		<link>http://gfederas.com/innovation</link>
		<comments>http://gfederas.com/innovation#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 05 Feb 2012 21:55:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Gint Federas</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Entrepreneurial Best Practices]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gfederas.com/?p=348</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Quoted from Facebook&#8217;s S-1 (IPO) filing: We have cultivated a unique culture and management approach that we call the Hacker Way. The word “hacker” has an unfairly negative connotation from being portrayed in the media as people who break into computers. In reality, hacking just means building something quickly or testing the boundaries of what [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://gfederas.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/T-ZUCKERBERG_AP1.jpg"><img class="alignright size-medium wp-image-408" title="Mark Zuckerberg" src="http://gfederas.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/T-ZUCKERBERG_AP1-300x199.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="199" /></a>Quoted from Facebook&#8217;s S-1 (IPO) filing:</p>
<p>We have cultivated a unique culture and management approach that we call the Hacker Way.</p>
<p>The word “hacker” has an unfairly negative connotation from being portrayed in the media as people who break into computers. In reality, hacking just means building something quickly or testing the boundaries of what can be done. Like most things, it can be used for good or bad, but the vast majority of hackers I’ve met tend to be idealistic people who want to have a positive impact on the world.</p>
<p>The Hacker Way is an approach to building that involves continuous improvement and iteration. Hackers believe that something can always be better, and that nothing is ever complete. They just have to go fix it — often in the face of people who say it’s impossible or are content with the status quo.</p>
<p>Hackers try to build the best services over the long term by quickly releasing and learning from smaller iterations rather than trying to get everything right all at once. To support this, we have built a testing framework that at any given time can try out thousands of versions of Facebook. We have the words “Done is better than perfect” painted on our walls to remind ourselves to always keep shipping.</p>
<p>Hacking is also an inherently hands-on and active discipline. Instead of debating for days whether a new idea is possible or what the best way to build something is, hackers would rather just prototype something and see what works. There’s a hacker mantra that you’ll hear a lot around Facebook offices: “Code wins arguments.”</p>
<p>Hacker culture is also extremely open and meritocratic. Hackers believe that the best idea and implementation should always win — not the person who is best at lobbying for an idea or the person who manages the most people.</p>
<p>To encourage this approach, every few months we have a hackathon, where everyone builds prototypes for new ideas they have. At the end, the whole team gets together and looks at everything that has been built. Many of our most successful products came out of hackathons, including Timeline, chat, video, our mobile development framework and some of our most important infrastructure like the HipHop compiler.</p>
<p>To make sure all our engineers share this approach, we require all new engineers — even managers whose primary job will not be to write code — to go through a program called Bootcamp where they learn our codebase, our tools and our approach. There are a lot of folks in the industry who manage engineers and don’t want to code themselves, but the type of hands-on people we’re looking for are willing and able to go through Bootcamp.</p>
<p>The examples above all relate to engineering, but we have distilled these principles into five core values for how we run Facebook:</p>
<p><strong>Focus on Impact</strong>: If we want to have the biggest impact, the best way to do this is to make sure we always focus on solving the most important problems. It sounds simple, but we think most companies do this poorly and waste a lot of time. We expect everyone at Facebook to be good at finding the biggest problems to work on.</p>
<p><strong>Move Fast</strong>: Moving fast enables us to build more things and learn faster. However, as most companies grow, they slow down too much because they’re more afraid of making mistakes than they are of losing opportunities by moving too slowly. We have a saying: “Move fast and break things.” The idea is that if you never break anything, you’re probably not moving fast enough.</p>
<p><strong>Be Bold</strong>: Building great things means taking risks. This can be scary and prevents most companies from doing the bold things they should. However, in a world that’s changing so quickly, you’re guaranteed to fail if you don’t take any risks. We have another saying: “The riskiest thing is to take no risks.” We encourage everyone to make bold decisions, even if that means being wrong some of the time.</p>
<p><strong>Be Open</strong>: We believe that a more open world is a better world because people with more information can make better decisions and have a greater impact. That goes for running our company as well. We work hard to make sure everyone at Facebook has access to as much information as possible about every part of the company so they can make the best decisions and have the greatest impact.</p>
<p><strong>Build Social Value</strong>: Once again, Facebook exists to make the world more open and connected, and not just to build a company. We expect everyone at Facebook to focus every day on how to build real value for the world in everything they do.</p>
<p>Quoted from <a href="http://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1326801/000119312512034517/d287954ds1.htm#toc287954_10">Facebook S-1, Page 69</a><br />
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://gfederas.com/innovation/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Multiple EV owner</title>
		<link>http://gfederas.com/innovation</link>
		<comments>http://gfederas.com/innovation#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Jan 2012 19:41:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Gint Federas</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[EV]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nissan leaf]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PG&E]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gfederas.com/?p=289</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[My transformation from oil importer to electron exporter is almost complete. In 2011, we replaced a 13mpg Sequoia with a 26mpg Lexus hybrid, and replaced a 16mpg Mercedes with a 50mpg Prius, that has further been replaced by an all electric Nissan Leaf in 2012. Now both the Ranger and Leaf suck amps rather than [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://gfederas.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/IMG_0529-e1326482103152.jpg"><img class="alignleft size-medium wp-image-288" title="IMG_0529" src="http://gfederas.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/IMG_0529-e1326482103152-224x300.jpg" alt="" width="224" height="300" /></a>My transformation from oil importer to electron exporter is almost complete. In 2011, we replaced a 13mpg Sequoia with a 26mpg Lexus hybrid, and replaced a 16mpg Mercedes with a 50mpg Prius, that has further been replaced by an all electric Nissan Leaf in 2012. Now both the Ranger and Leaf suck amps rather than oil, and the two hybrids merely sip fuel. Our gasoline bill dropped from $5K in 2010 to $3K in 2011. We expect our gasoline bill to be just $1500 in 2012, since only the Lexus will be burning gas. Know anyone interested in a 2010 Prius V that has been babied since birth? 50mpg average!</p>
<p>We added solar panels in 2009 that dropped our electric bill substantially by reducing net electricity usage from Tier 5 to Tier 2. Adding timers, shifting usage to non-peak hours, and replacing the old pool pump with a variable speed pump, reduced our PG&amp;E bill from $2500 in 2010 to $1600 in 2011 (36% further reduction).</p>
<p>After driving nearly 2,000 miles in the Leaf, I&#8217;ve been able to compare electricity and gasoline costs. My electric bill increased only $40. In comparison, the same 2,000 miles driven at today&#8217;s gas prices would cost $150 in the Prius, or $576 in the Sequoia. WOW!<br />
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://gfederas.com/innovation/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Steve Jobs on Creativity</title>
		<link>http://gfederas.com/innovation</link>
		<comments>http://gfederas.com/innovation#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 Oct 2011 04:09:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Gint Federas</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Entrepreneurial Best Practices]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gfederas.com/?p=276</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Steve Jobs defined and guided Apple to become one of the world&#8217;s most successful and influential technology companies. Among his many attributes, in addition to being a thought leader, was the ability to dispense inspirational and forward looking public statements. When it comes to innovation, design and creativity, Jobs has shared some lasting quotes that [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div>
<p><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px;"><a href="http://gfederas.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/02steve.jpg"><img class="alignright size-full wp-image-404" title="02steve" src="http://gfederas.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/02steve.jpg" alt="" width="370" height="370" /></a>Steve Jobs defined and guided Apple to become one of the world&#8217;s most successful and influential technology companies. Among his many attributes, in addition to being a thought leader, was the ability to dispense inspirational and forward looking public statements. When it comes to innovation, design and creativity, Jobs has shared some lasting quotes that have proven to be most intuitive.</span></p>
<p>Michael Gass, in his blog Fuel lines, presents ten of the all time greats:</p>
<ol type="1" start="1">
<li>&#8220;The cure for Apple is not cost-cutting. The cure for Apple is to innovate its way out of its current predicament.&#8221; <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/188641128X?ie=UTF8&amp;tag=michgass-20&amp;linkCode=shr&amp;camp=213733&amp;creative=393177&amp;creativeASIN=188641128X&amp;ref_=reader_auth_dp%20via" target="_blank">Apple Confidential: The Real Story of Apple Computer</a></li>
<li>&#8220;For something this complicated, it&#8217;s really hard to design products by focus groups. A lot of times, people don&#8217;t know what they want until you show it to them.&#8221;<a href="http://www.businessweek.com/archives/1998/b3579156.arc.htm" target="_blank"> Bloomberg Businessweek</a></li>
<li>&#8220;Creativity is just connecting things. When you ask creative people how they did something, they feel a little guilty because they didn&#8217;t really do it; they just saw something. It seemed obvious to them after a while. That&#8217;s because they were able to connect experiences they&#8217;ve had and synthesize new things. And the reason they were able to do that was that they&#8217;ve had more experiences or they have thought more about their experiences than other people.&#8221; <a href="http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/4.02/jobs_pr.html" target="_blank">Wired</a></li>
<li>&#8220;That&#8217;s been one of my mantras — focus and simplicity. Simple can be harder than complex: You have to work hard to get your thinking clean to make it simple. But it&#8217;s worth it in the end because once you get there, you can move mountains.&#8221;<a href="http://www.businessweek.com/archives/1998/b3579156.arc.htm" target="_blank">BusinessWeek</a></li>
<li>&#8220;Innovation has nothing to do with how many R&amp;D dollars you have. When Apple came up with the Mac, IBM was spending at least 100 times more on R&amp;D. It&#8217;s not about money. It&#8217;s about the people you have, how you&#8217;re led, and how much you get it.&#8221;<a href="http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1998/11/09/250834/index.htm" target="_blank">CNNMoney</a></li>
<li>&#8220;When you first start off trying to solve a problem, the first solutions you come up with are very complex, and most people stop there. But if you keep going, and live with the problem and peel more layers of the onion off, you can often times arrive at some very elegant and simple solutions.&#8221; <a href="http://ashim.wordpress.com/2006/10/16/49/" target="_blank">Newsweek</a></li>
<li>&#8220;We made the buttons on the screen look so good you&#8217;ll want to lick them.&#8221; <a href="http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2000/01/24/272281/index.htm" target="_blank">Fortune</a></li>
<li>&#8220;Being the richest man in the cemetery doesn&#8217;t matter to me … Going to bed at night saying we&#8217;ve done something wonderful… that&#8217;s what matters to me.&#8221; <a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2011/08/24/steve-jobss-best-quotes/?KEYWORDS=Steve+jobs+Quotes" target="_blank">Wall Street Journal</a></li>
<li>&#8220;You&#8217;re missing it. This is not a one-man show. What&#8217;s reinvigorating this company is two things: One, there&#8217;s a lot of really talented people in this company who listened to the world tell them they were losers for a couple of years, and some of them were on the verge of starting to believe it themselves. But they&#8217;re not losers. What they didn&#8217;t have was a good set of coaches, a good plan. A good senior management team. But they have that now.&#8221; <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/archives/1998/b3579156.arc.htm" target="_blank">BusinessWeek</a></li>
<li>&#8220;The system is that there is no system. That doesn&#8217;t mean we don&#8217;t have process. Apple is a very disciplined company, and we have great processes. But that&#8217;s not what it&#8217;s about. Process makes you more efficient … But innovation comes from people meeting up in the hallways or calling each other at 10:30 at night with a new idea, or because they realized something that shoots holes in how we&#8217;ve been thinking about a problem. It&#8217;s ad hoc meetings of six people called by someone who thinks he has figured out the coolest new thing ever and who wants to know what other people think of his idea.&#8221;<a href="http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/oct2004/nf20041012_4018_db083.htm" target="_blank">BusinessWeek</a></li>
</ol>
<p>In addition to his ability to simplify complex ideas and goals, Jobs&#8217; legacy includes his marketing savvy and an ability to create new markets—both of which the company can continue to capitalize upon—and competitors can pursue as well.</p>
</div>

]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://gfederas.com/innovation/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Fukushima Plant Explanation</title>
		<link>http://gfederas.com/innovation</link>
		<comments>http://gfederas.com/innovation#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Apr 2011 20:39:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Gint Federas</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gfederas.com/?p=264</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Click here for this simple explanation of how the Fukushima plant in Japan was damaged after the tsunami (Source: New York Times)]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://gfederas.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/animation4.gif"><img class="alignright size-medium wp-image-412" title="animation~4" src="http://gfederas.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/animation4-300x180.gif" alt="" width="300" height="180" /></a>Click <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/03/12/world/asia/the-explosion-at-the-japanese-reactor.html" target="_blank">here</a> for this simple explanation of how the Fukushima plant in Japan was damaged after the tsunami (Source: New York Times)<br />
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://gfederas.com/innovation/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Fukushima Nuclear Accident – a simple and accurate explanation</title>
		<link>http://gfederas.com/innovation</link>
		<comments>http://gfederas.com/innovation#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 13 Mar 2011 23:04:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Gint Federas</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gfederas.com/?p=258</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Source: http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/13/fukushima-simple-explanation/ Fukushima Nuclear Accident – a simple and accurate explanation Posted on 13 March 2011 by Barry Brook Along with reliable sources such as the IAEA and WNN updates, there is an incredible amount of misinformation and hyperbole flying around the internet and media right now about the Fukushima nuclear reactor situation. In the [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Source: http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/13/fukushima-simple-explanation/<a href="http://gfederas.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Image-Cutaway-perspective-of-Fukushima-No.-1-Power-Plant-by-GeneralElectric1971-by-hiroshimasyndrome-dot-com.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-medium wp-image-410" title="Image Cutaway perspective of Fukushima No. 1 Power Plant by GeneralElectric(1971) by hiroshimasyndrome dot com" src="http://gfederas.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Image-Cutaway-perspective-of-Fukushima-No.-1-Power-Plant-by-GeneralElectric1971-by-hiroshimasyndrome-dot-com-300x280.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="280" /></a></p>
<p>Fukushima Nuclear Accident – a simple and accurate explanation<br />
Posted on 13 March 2011 by Barry Brook</p>
<p>Along with reliable sources such as the IAEA and WNN updates, there is an incredible amount of misinformation and hyperbole flying around the internet and media right now about the Fukushima nuclear reactor situation. In the BNC post Discussion Thread – Japanese nuclear reactors and the 11 March 2011 earthquake (and in the many comments that attend the top post), a lot of technical detail is provided, as well as regular updates. But what about a layman’s summary? How do most people get a grasp on what is happening, why, and what the consequences will be?</p>
<p>Below I reproduce a summary on the situation prepared by Dr Josef Oehmen, a research scientist at MIT, in Boston. <span id="more-258"></span>He is a PhD Scientist, whose father has extensive experience in Germany’s nuclear industry. This was first posted by Jason Morgan earlier this evening, and he has kindly allowed me to reproduce it here. I think it is very important that this information be widely understood.</p>
<p>Please also take the time to read this: An informed public is key to acceptance of nuclear energy — it was never more relevant than now.</p>
<p>———————————</p>
<p>I am writing this text (Mar 12) to give you some peace of mind regarding some of the troubles in Japan, that is the safety of Japan’s nuclear reactors. Up front, the situation is serious, but under control. And this text is long! But you will know more about nuclear power plants after reading it than all journalists on this planet put together.</p>
<p>There was and will *not* be any significant release of radioactivity.</p>
<p>By “significant” I mean a level of radiation of more than what you would receive on – say – a long distance flight, or drinking a glass of beer that comes from certain areas with high levels of natural background radiation.</p>
<p>I have been reading every news release on the incident since the earthquake. There has not been one single (!) report that was accurate and free of errors (and part of that problem is also a weakness in the Japanese crisis communication). By “not free of errors” I do not refer to tendentious anti-nuclear journalism – that is quite normal these days. By “not free of errors” I mean blatant errors regarding physics and natural law, as well as gross misinterpretation of facts, due to an obvious lack of fundamental and basic understanding of the way nuclear reactors are build and operated. I have read a 3 page report on CNN where every single paragraph contained an error.</p>
<p>We will have to cover some fundamentals, before we get into what is going on.</p>
<p>Construction of the Fukushima nuclear power plants</p>
<p>The plants at Fukushima are so called Boiling Water Reactors, or BWR for short. Boiling Water Reactors are similar to a pressure cooker. The nuclear fuel heats water, the water boils and creates steam, the steam then drives turbines that create the electricity, and the steam is then cooled and condensed back to water, and the water send back to be heated by the nuclear fuel. The pressure cooker operates at about 250 °C.</p>
<p>The nuclear fuel is uranium oxide. Uranium oxide is a ceramic with a very high melting point of about 3000 °C. The fuel is manufactured in pellets (think little cylinders the size of Lego bricks). Those pieces are then put into a long tube made of Zircaloy with a melting point of 2200 °C, and sealed tight. The assembly is called a fuel rod. These fuel rods are then put together to form larger packages, and a number of these packages are then put into the reactor. All these packages together are referred to as “the core”.</p>
<p>The Zircaloy casing is the first containment. It separates the radioactive fuel from the rest of the world.</p>
<p>The core is then placed in the “pressure vessels”. That is the pressure cooker we talked about before. The pressure vessels is the second containment. This is one sturdy piece of a pot, designed to safely contain the core for temperatures several hundred °C. That covers the scenarios where cooling can be restored at some point.</p>
<p>The entire “hardware” of the nuclear reactor – the pressure vessel and all pipes, pumps, coolant (water) reserves, are then encased in the third containment. The third containment is a hermetically (air tight) sealed, very thick bubble of the strongest steel. The third containment is designed, built and tested for one single purpose: To contain, indefinitely, a complete core meltdown. For that purpose, a large and thick concrete basin is cast under the pressure vessel (the second containment), which is filled with graphite, all inside the third containment. This is the so-called “core catcher”. If the core melts and the pressure vessel bursts (and eventually melts), it will catch the molten fuel and everything else. It is built in such a way that the nuclear fuel will be spread out, so it can cool down.</p>
<p>This third containment is then surrounded by the reactor building. The reactor building is an outer shell that is supposed to keep the weather out, but nothing in. (this is the part that was damaged in the explosion, but more to that later).</p>
<p>Fundamentals of nuclear reactions</p>
<p>The uranium fuel generates heat by nuclear fission. Big uranium atoms are split into smaller atoms. That generates heat plus neutrons (one of the particles that forms an atom). When the neutron hits another uranium atom, that splits, generating more neutrons and so on. That is called the nuclear chain reaction.</p>
<p>Now, just packing a lot of fuel rods next to each other would quickly lead to overheating and after about 45 minutes to a melting of the fuel rods. It is worth mentioning at this point that the nuclear fuel in a reactor can *never* cause a nuclear explosion the type of a nuclear bomb. Building a nuclear bomb is actually quite difficult (ask Iran). In Chernobyl, the explosion was caused by excessive pressure buildup, hydrogen explosion and rupture of all containments, propelling molten core material into the environment (a “dirty bomb”). Why that did not and will not happen in Japan, further below.</p>
<p>In order to control the nuclear chain reaction, the reactor operators use so-called “control rods”. The control rods absorb the neutrons and kill the chain reaction instantaneously. A nuclear reactor is built in such a way, that when operating normally, you take out all the control rods. The coolant water then takes away the heat (and converts it into steam and electricity) at the same rate as the core produces it. And you have a lot of leeway around the standard operating point of 250°C.</p>
<p>The challenge is that after inserting the rods and stopping the chain reaction, the core still keeps producing heat. The uranium “stopped” the chain reaction. But a number of intermediate radioactive elements are created by the uranium during its fission process, most notably Cesium and Iodine isotopes, i.e. radioactive versions of these elements that will eventually split up into smaller atoms and not be radioactive anymore. Those elements keep decaying and producing heat. Because they are not regenerated any longer from the uranium (the uranium stopped decaying after the control rods were put in), they get less and less, and so the core cools down over a matter of days, until those intermediate radioactive elements are used up.</p>
<p>This residual heat is causing the headaches right now.</p>
<p>So the first “type” of radioactive material is the uranium in the fuel rods, plus the intermediate radioactive elements that the uranium splits into, also inside the fuel rod (Cesium and Iodine).</p>
<p>There is a second type of radioactive material created, outside the fuel rods. The big main difference up front: Those radioactive materials have a very short half-life, that means that they decay very fast and split into non-radioactive materials. By fast I mean seconds. So if these radioactive materials are released into the environment, yes, radioactivity was released, but no, it is not dangerous, at all. Why? By the time you spelled “R-A-D-I-O-N-U-C-L-I-D-E”, they will be harmless, because they will have split up into non radioactive elements. Those radioactive elements are N-16, the radioactive isotope (or version) of nitrogen (air). The others are noble gases such as Xenon. But where do they come from? When the uranium splits, it generates a neutron (see above). Most of these neutrons will hit other uranium atoms and keep the nuclear chain reaction going. But some will leave the fuel rod and hit the water molecules, or the air that is in the water. Then, a non-radioactive element can “capture” the neutron. It becomes radioactive. As described above, it will quickly (seconds) get rid again of the neutron to return to its former beautiful self.</p>
<p>This second “type” of radiation is very important when we talk about the radioactivity being released into the environment later on.</p>
<p>What happened at Fukushima</p>
<p>I will try to summarize the main facts. The earthquake that hit Japan was 7 times more powerful than the worst earthquake the nuclear power plant was built for (the Richter scale works logarithmically; the difference between the 8.2 that the plants were built for and the 8.9 that happened is 7 times, not 0.7). So the first hooray for Japanese engineering, everything held up.</p>
<p>When the earthquake hit with 8.9, the nuclear reactors all went into automatic shutdown. Within seconds after the earthquake started, the control rods had been inserted into the core and nuclear chain reaction of the uranium stopped. Now, the cooling system has to carry away the residual heat. The residual heat load is about 3% of the heat load under normal operating conditions.</p>
<p>The earthquake destroyed the external power supply of the nuclear reactor. That is one of the most serious accidents for a nuclear power plant, and accordingly, a “plant black out” receives a lot of attention when designing backup systems. The power is needed to keep the coolant pumps working. Since the power plant had been shut down, it cannot produce any electricity by itself any more.</p>
<p>Things were going well for an hour. One set of multiple sets of emergency Diesel power generators kicked in and provided the electricity that was needed. Then the Tsunami came, much bigger than people had expected when building the power plant (see above, factor 7). The tsunami took out all multiple sets of backup Diesel generators.</p>
<p>When designing a nuclear power plant, engineers follow a philosophy called “Defense of Depth”. That means that you first build everything to withstand the worst catastrophe you can imagine, and then design the plant in such a way that it can still handle one system failure (that you thought could never happen) after the other. A tsunami taking out all backup power in one swift strike is such a scenario. The last line of defense is putting everything into the third containment (see above), that will keep everything, whatever the mess, control rods in our out, core molten or not, inside the reactor.</p>
<p>When the diesel generators were gone, the reactor operators switched to emergency battery power. The batteries were designed as one of the backups to the backups, to provide power for cooling the core for 8 hours. And they did.</p>
<p>Within the 8 hours, another power source had to be found and connected to the power plant. The power grid was down due to the earthquake. The diesel generators were destroyed by the tsunami. So mobile diesel generators were trucked in.</p>
<p>This is where things started to go seriously wrong. The external power generators could not be connected to the power plant (the plugs did not fit). So after the batteries ran out, the residual heat could not be carried away any more.</p>
<p>At this point the plant operators begin to follow emergency procedures that are in place for a “loss of cooling event”. It is again a step along the “Depth of Defense” lines. The power to the cooling systems should never have failed completely, but it did, so they “retreat” to the next line of defense. All of this, however shocking it seems to us, is part of the day-to-day training you go through as an operator, right through to managing a core meltdown.</p>
<p>It was at this stage that people started to talk about core meltdown. Because at the end of the day, if cooling cannot be restored, the core will eventually melt (after hours or days), and the last line of defense, the core catcher and third containment, would come into play.</p>
<p>But the goal at this stage was to manage the core while it was heating up, and ensure that the first containment (the Zircaloy tubes that contains the nuclear fuel), as well as the second containment (our pressure cooker) remain intact and operational for as long as possible, to give the engineers time to fix the cooling systems.</p>
<p>Because cooling the core is such a big deal, the reactor has a number of cooling systems, each in multiple versions (the reactor water cleanup system, the decay heat removal, the reactor core isolating cooling, the standby liquid cooling system, and the emergency core cooling system). Which one failed when or did not fail is not clear at this point in time.</p>
<p>So imagine our pressure cooker on the stove, heat on low, but on. The operators use whatever cooling system capacity they have to get rid of as much heat as possible, but the pressure starts building up. The priority now is to maintain integrity of the first containment (keep temperature of the fuel rods below 2200°C), as well as the second containment, the pressure cooker. In order to maintain integrity of the pressure cooker (the second containment), the pressure has to be released from time to time. Because the ability to do that in an emergency is so important, the reactor has 11 pressure release valves. The operators now started venting steam from time to time to control the pressure. The temperature at this stage was about 550°C.</p>
<p>This is when the reports about “radiation leakage” starting coming in. I believe I explained above why venting the steam is theoretically the same as releasing radiation into the environment, but why it was and is not dangerous. The radioactive nitrogen as well as the noble gases do not pose a threat to human health.</p>
<p>At some stage during this venting, the explosion occurred. The explosion took place outside of the third containment (our “last line of defense”), and the reactor building. Remember that the reactor building has no function in keeping the radioactivity contained. It is not entirely clear yet what has happened, but this is the likely scenario: The operators decided to vent the steam from the pressure vessel not directly into the environment, but into the space between the third containment and the reactor building (to give the radioactivity in the steam more time to subside). The problem is that at the high temperatures that the core had reached at this stage, water molecules can “disassociate” into oxygen and hydrogen – an explosive mixture. And it did explode, outside the third containment, damaging the reactor building around. It was that sort of explosion, but inside the pressure vessel (because it was badly designed and not managed properly by the operators) that lead to the explosion of Chernobyl. This was never a risk at Fukushima. The problem of hydrogen-oxygen formation is one of the biggies when you design a power plant (if you are not Soviet, that is), so the reactor is build and operated in a way it cannot happen inside the containment. It happened outside, which was not intended but a possible scenario and OK, because it did not pose a risk for the containment.</p>
<p>So the pressure was under control, as steam was vented. Now, if you keep boiling your pot, the problem is that the water level will keep falling and falling. The core is covered by several meters of water in order to allow for some time to pass (hours, days) before it gets exposed. Once the rods start to be exposed at the top, the exposed parts will reach the critical temperature of 2200 °C after about 45 minutes. This is when the first containment, the Zircaloy tube, would fail.</p>
<p>And this started to happen. The cooling could not be restored before there was some (very limited, but still) damage to the casing of some of the fuel. The nuclear material itself was still intact, but the surrounding Zircaloy shell had started melting. What happened now is that some of the byproducts of the uranium decay – radioactive Cesium and Iodine – started to mix with the steam. The big problem, uranium, was still under control, because the uranium oxide rods were good until 3000 °C. It is confirmed that a very small amount of Cesium and Iodine was measured in the steam that was released into the atmosphere.</p>
<p>It seems this was the “go signal” for a major plan B. The small amounts of Cesium that were measured told the operators that the first containment on one of the rods somewhere was about to give. The Plan A had been to restore one of the regular cooling systems to the core. Why that failed is unclear. One plausible explanation is that the tsunami also took away / polluted all the clean water needed for the regular cooling systems.</p>
<p>The water used in the cooling system is very clean, demineralized (like distilled) water. The reason to use pure water is the above mentioned activation by the neutrons from the Uranium: Pure water does not get activated much, so stays practically radioactive-free. Dirt or salt in the water will absorb the neutrons quicker, becoming more radioactive. This has no effect whatsoever on the core – it does not care what it is cooled by. But it makes life more difficult for the operators and mechanics when they have to deal with activated (i.e. slightly radioactive) water.</p>
<p>But Plan A had failed – cooling systems down or additional clean water unavailable – so Plan B came into effect. This is what it looks like happened:</p>
<p>In order to prevent a core meltdown, the operators started to use sea water to cool the core. I am not quite sure if they flooded our pressure cooker with it (the second containment), or if they flooded the third containment, immersing the pressure cooker. But that is not relevant for us.</p>
<p>The point is that the nuclear fuel has now been cooled down. Because the chain reaction has been stopped a long time ago, there is only very little residual heat being produced now. The large amount of cooling water that has been used is sufficient to take up that heat. Because it is a lot of water, the core does not produce sufficient heat any more to produce any significant pressure. Also, boric acid has been added to the seawater. Boric acid is “liquid control rod”. Whatever decay is still going on, the Boron will capture the neutrons and further speed up the cooling down of the core.</p>
<p>The plant came close to a core meltdown. Here is the worst-case scenario that was avoided: If the seawater could not have been used for treatment, the operators would have continued to vent the water steam to avoid pressure buildup. The third containment would then have been completely sealed to allow the core meltdown to happen without releasing radioactive material. After the meltdown, there would have been a waiting period for the intermediate radioactive materials to decay inside the reactor, and all radioactive particles to settle on a surface inside the containment. The cooling system would have been restored eventually, and the molten core cooled to a manageable temperature. The containment would have been cleaned up on the inside. Then a messy job of removing the molten core from the containment would have begun, packing the (now solid again) fuel bit by bit into transportation containers to be shipped to processing plants. Depending on the damage, the block of the plant would then either be repaired or dismantled.</p>
<p>Now, where does that leave us?</p>
<p>* The plant is safe now and will stay safe.<br />
* Japan is looking at an INES Level 4 Accident: Nuclear accident with local consequences. That is bad for the company that owns the plant, but not for anyone else.<br />
* Some radiation was released when the pressure vessel was vented. All radioactive isotopes from the activated steam have gone (decayed). A very small amount of Cesium was released, as well as Iodine. If you were sitting on top of the plants’ chimney when they were venting, you should probably give up smoking to return to your former life expectancy. The Cesium and Iodine isotopes were carried out to the sea and will never be seen again.<br />
* There was some limited damage to the first containment. That means that some amounts of radioactive Cesium and Iodine will also be released into the cooling water, but no Uranium or other nasty stuff (the Uranium oxide does not “dissolve” in the water). There are facilities for treating the cooling water inside the third containment. The radioactive Cesium and Iodine will be removed there and eventually stored as radioactive waste in terminal storage.<br />
* The seawater used as cooling water will be activated to some degree. Because the control rods are fully inserted, the Uranium chain reaction is not happening. That means the “main” nuclear reaction is not happening, thus not contributing to the activation. The intermediate radioactive materials (Cesium and Iodine) are also almost gone at this stage, because the Uranium decay was stopped a long time ago. This further reduces the activation. The bottom line is that there will be some low level of activation of the seawater, which will also be removed by the treatment facilities.<br />
* The seawater will then be replaced over time with the “normal” cooling water<br />
* The reactor core will then be dismantled and transported to a processing facility, just like during a regular fuel change.<br />
* Fuel rods and the entire plant will be checked for potential damage. This will take about 4-5 years.<br />
* The safety systems on all Japanese plants will be upgraded to withstand a 9.0 earthquake and tsunami (or worse)<br />
* I believe the most significant problem will be a prolonged power shortage. About half of Japan’s nuclear reactors will probably have to be inspected, reducing the nation’s power generating capacity by 15%. This will probably be covered by running gas power plants that are usually only used for peak loads to cover some of the base load as well. That will increase your electricity bill, as well as lead to potential power shortages during peak demand, in Japan.</p>
<p>If you want to stay informed, please forget the usual media outlets and consult the following websites:</p>
<p>* http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS_Battle_to_stabilise_earthquake_reactors_1203111.html<br />
* http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/12/japan-nuclear-earthquake/<br />
* http://ansnuclearcafe.org/2011/03/11/media-updates-on-nuclear-power-stations-in-japan/<br />
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://gfederas.com/innovation/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Would You Hire Steve Jobs?</title>
		<link>http://gfederas.com/innovation</link>
		<comments>http://gfederas.com/innovation#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Mar 2011 21:31:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Gint Federas</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Entrepreneurial Best Practices]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gfederas.com/?p=327</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[(Found online) Ask the question, &#8220;If Steve Jobs (or his clone) showed up at our company asking for a job &#8211; would we give him one?&#8221;  Don&#8217;t forget, the Apple Board fired Steve Jobs some 20 years ago to give his role to a less creative, but more &#8220;professional,&#8221; John Scully.  Mr. Scully was subsequently [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>(Found online)<a href="http://gfederas.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/steve_jobs.jpg"><img class="alignright size-medium wp-image-406" title="steve_jobs" src="http://gfederas.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/steve_jobs-300x187.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="187" /></a></p>
<p><span style="color: black; font-family: Georgia; font-size: x-small;">Ask the question, &#8220;If Steve Jobs (or his clone) showed up at our company asking for a job &#8211; would we give him one?&#8221;  Don&#8217;t forget, the Apple Board fired Steve Jobs some 20 years ago to give his role to a less creative, but more &#8220;professional,&#8221; John Scully.  Mr. Scully was subsequently fired by the Board for creatively investing too heavily in the innovative Newton - the first PDA &#8211; to be replaced by a leadership team willing to jettison this new product market and refocus all attention on the Macintosh.  Both CEO change decisions turned out to be horrible for Apple, and it was only after Mr. Jobs returned to the company after nearly 20 years in other businesses that its fortunes reblossomed when the company replaced outdated industrial management philosophies with innovation.  But, oh-so-close the company came to complete failure before re-igniting the innovation jets.</span></p>
<p><span style="color: black; font-family: Georgia; font-size: x-small;">Examples of outdated management, with horrific results, abound.  Brenda Barnes destroyed shareholder value for 6 years at Sara Lee chasing a centralized focus and cost reductions &#8211; leaving the company with no future other than break-up and acquisition.  GE&#8217;s fortunes have dropped dramatically as Mr. Immelt turned away from the rabid efforts at innovation and growth under Welch and toward more cautious investments and reliance on a set of core markets &#8211; including financial services.  After once dominating the mobile phone industry the best Motorola&#8217;s leadership has been able to do lately is split the company in two, hoping as a divided business leadership can do better than it did as a single entity.  Even a big winner like Home Depot has struggled to innovate and grow as it remained dedicated to its traditional business. Once a darling of industry, the supply chain focused Dell has lost its growth and value as a raft of new MBA leaders &#8211; mostly recruited from consultancy Bain &amp; Company &#8211; have kept applying traditional industrial management with its cost curves and economy-of-scale illogic to a market racked by the introduction of new products such as smartphones and tablets.</span></p>
<p><span style="color: black; font-family: Georgia; font-size: x-small;">Meanwhile, leaders that foster and implement innovation have shown how to be successful this last decade.  Jeff Bezos has transformed retailing and publishing simultaneously by introducing a raft of innovations, including the Kindle.  Google&#8217;s value soared as its founders and new CEO redefined the way people obtain news &#8211; and the ads supporting what people read.  The entire &#8220;social media&#8221; marketplace is now taking viewers, and ad dollars, from traditional media bringing the limelight to CEOs at Facebook, Twitter and Linked-in.  While newspaper companies like Tribune Corp., NYT, Dow Jones and Washington Post have faltered, pop publisher Arianna Huffington created $315M of value by hiring a group of bloggers to populate the on-line news tabloid Huffington Post.  And Apple is close to becoming the world&#8217;s most valuable publicly traded company on the backs of new product innovations. </span></p>
<p><span style="color: black; font-family: Georgia; font-size: x-small;">But, asking again, would your company hire the leaders of these companies?  Would it hire the Vice-President&#8217;s, Directors and Managers?  Or would you consider them too avant-garde?  Even President Obama washed out his commitment to jobs growth when he selected Mr. Immelt to head his committee &#8211; demonstrating a complete lack of understanding what it takes to grow &#8211; to innovate &#8211; in today&#8217;s intensely competitive information economy. Where he should have begged, on hands and knees, for Eric Schmidt of Google to show us the way to information nirvana he picked, well, an old-line industrialist.</span></p>
<p><span style="color: black; font-family: Georgia; font-size: x-small;">Until we start promoting innovators we won&#8217;t have any innovation.  We must understand that America&#8217;s successful history doesn&#8217;t guarantee it&#8217;s successful future.  Competing on bits, rather than brawn or natural resources, requires creativity to recognize opportunities, develop them and implement new solutions rapidly.  It requires adaptability to deal with new technologies, new business models and new competitors.  It requires an understanding of innovation and how to learn while doing.  America has these leaders.  We just need to give them the positions and chance to succeed.</span><br />
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://gfederas.com/innovation/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Steve Jobs Tribute</title>
		<link>http://gfederas.com/innovation</link>
		<comments>http://gfederas.com/innovation#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Oct 2010 00:01:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Gint Federas</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Entrepreneurial Best Practices]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gfederas.com/?p=279</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[. (PAUL ZANETTI / Sydney Daily Telegraphi / Cagle.com) &#160;]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img class="alignleft" style="border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-width: 0px;" src="http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/WashingtonPost/Content/Blogs/comic-riffs/StandingArt/jobsipad2.jpg?uuid=yZBlvvLyEeC4Lb8lBMZ5GQ" alt="" width="454" height="324" align="bottom" border="0" /><br />
. (PAUL ZANETTI / Sydney Daily Telegraphi / Cagle.com)</p>
<p>&nbsp;<br />
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://gfederas.com/innovation/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Driving Impressions &#8211; Nissan Leaf vs. Chevy Volt</title>
		<link>http://gfederas.com/innovation</link>
		<comments>http://gfederas.com/innovation#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 Oct 2010 19:41:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Gint Federas</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[EV]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gfederas.com/?p=210</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The clear winner for me was the Leaf. Very roomy inside, lots of power. In contrast, the door height was too short on the Volt for easy ingress/egress (I’m 6’3”). I won&#8217;t even think of getting in the back seat as the roofline swoops down. The Volt’s batteries were only 400 pounds, but the Volt [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The clear winner for me was the Leaf. Very roomy inside, lots of power. </p>
<p>In contrast, the door height was too short on the Volt for easy ingress/egress (I’m 6’3”). I won&#8217;t even think of getting in the back seat as the roofline swoops down. The Volt’s batteries were only 400 pounds, but the Volt felt heavy and drove sluggishly. To be fair, the Volt ran out of battery just as I was starting my test drive. The range extended mode performance may not be as peppy compared to full battery mode.<br />
The range extender on the Volt was surprisingly quiet. I didn’t know it was on until the Chevy rep pointed it out. Kudos to GM engineers.</p>
<p>The 4th quarter of every year is traditionally the Auto Show season. I hope either the San Francisco or San Jose Auto Shows include an opportunity to drive these vehicles. After all, these cars are totally emission-free, producing no exhaust noise, particulates, or toxic fumes to prevent indoor driving. The Moscone Center Annex is certainly large enough for an indoor track. San Jose&#8217;s Convention Center parking lot can be used for outdoor test drives. I am not predicting, just suggesting Auto Show organizers consider this possibility.</p>

]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://gfederas.com/innovation/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

