Future Times: Learning for Tomorrow

WFS Introduces New Publication

by Timothy C. Mack

This last year has been a very busy one for the World Future Society, but a relatively slow one for Future Times. Following the merger of Future Times and Learning Tomorrow into a single publication, it became clear that Michael Marien was actually going to undertake the retirement of editor of Future Survey that he had been considering for over half a decade. Discussions concerning this possibility led to a decision to also merge the successor to Future Survey (the abstracting of critical futures literature across a range of disciplines) and Futures Research Quarterly, the academic journal of the WFS Professional Members Section. In addition, there would be interviews of leading writers and futurists, book reviews and other features as the new publication goes forward.

As one might imagine, this development effort was no simple task, and it took much of the past nine months to accomplish it. But now that the first issue of that successor publication, World Future Review: A Journal of Strategic Foresight is in print and out to its readership and the next issue is ready to go to the printer (it comes out six times a year), there is again time to focus on Future Times. As before, we will offer a combination of education articles and smaller scale topical pieces, as well as news and events within the foresight world. And also as always, we look forward to your feedback and comments about how we can make the publication more useful to you, its readers. Feel free to contact me at tmack@wfs.org.

News and Events for the Futurist Community

• Education Summit: Innovation and Creativity in Learning
• Professional Members' Forum: Outlooks for 2025
• World Future 2009: Innovation and Creativity in a Complex World
• Visit the new Europe Futurist Group

Articles

Self-Sustaining Classroom

by Robert Rose

There are many excellent classroom management techniques available now to help almost any teacher achieve what I’m going to describe. Chris Biffle’s "Power Teaching" I’ve seen taught successfully in many schools in many districts. It makes classrooms more safe, fun, and effective and the control method is more persuasive than coercive.

I wish it had been available when I began teaching in 1959. In the 60’s and 70’s I used one swat to the behind or suspension and they were effective punishments and deterrents for those who were physically and emotionally hurting others. Even then (without realizing this was more the reason for their change) I balanced these coercive methods in two ways.

One was that every child received due process. Punishment was not arbitrary and the student either admitted his offense or it was proven. He explained his side and if he was found guilty he could appeal to be heard by the classroom student court. My decision could be overturned. Almost all felt they received justice so seldom did a student complain about the consequence. The consequences for each infraction had been discussed and agreed with beforehand by the entire class. The guilty one could select from (usually two or three) consequences. The act of choosing gave him power over his life. All of these things gave real power to everyone.

If a student still felt he had been wronged I gave him the option not to be punished then, but if he committed the same offense again, the punishment would be doubled. Most never committed the same offense and so it did what punishment is supposed to do, it deterred the crime from recurring.

Equally important was the fact I spent my own time during recess, lunch, and after school on the playground playing sports and games, and talking with students. This personal affection and attention balanced my authoritarian role. I seldom had to punish a student twice.

In my own classroom I had a student government as well as student court. Since I spent less time in classroom control I had time to individualize instruction (I.I.)

I.I. is impossible without effective classroom control. I had progressed from totally coercive to persuasive control. Rewards such as smiles, hugs, and positive, true complimentary comments rather than physical gifts (I was too poor) worked for me.

The basis for I.I is a strong awareness of individual differences. I was able to understand this from my exposure in graduate school in 1961 to Roger William’s concept of Biochemical Individuality. I studied his books and was overwhelmed by the immense physiological differences between each child. I no longer saw a relatively homogeneous age-related, but a bewildering group of thirty-eight unique individuals. I had no one to ask about how to do it so I began experimenting with changing from always talking to working with individual students.

From sending for and getting into trouble by using the first SRA kit in Los Angeles, I continued a lot of trial and error while reading in other disciplines for ideas. After many frustrating failures and some successes I realized that using I.I. all day was as ineffective (and exhausting) as all day with teacher directed lessons. A mix of I.I., whole class, and small group activities were most effective depending on teacher judgment on when to use each. The importance of teacher autonomy.

I found that in a few minutes of reading one-on-one with a student daily I could discover what he understood and what he needed to learn. I could teach him the different skills and concepts in a few minutes more efficiently than I had done with the whole class lesson. Of course I still introduced most skills and concepts first to the entire class before I did I.I. The I.I. gave me immediate and more complete feedback than questions during whole class lessons. The continuous feedback during I.I. enabled me to teach him more quickly and efficiently.

To individualize I needed to insure a minimum of interruptions from the usual conflicts among the students. I couldn’t have the class only playing games or socializing (although each had its value and was allowed at times) so the class had to be involved with other productive educational objectives as they improved their individual skills. I had to insure that each student was involved and that meant he had to be in activities that were reinforcing (meaning I didn’t have to reteach them) or were his choice so he was totally interested and focused.

My initial foray into I.I. was with a group of sixth graders in Los Angeles. By mid-April we had completed the curriculum that the district mandated. I was in a portable room quite isolated from the rest of the school so I knew ahead of time if a visitor approached.

I explained to the class that we would be trying something that hadn’t been tried before and it probably would be stopped if anyone except they and their parents knew about it.

I explained that we would have art, music, and physical education spaced throughout the day and the rest of the time each would be working independently on his reading, math, writing, social studies, or science.

Each student would make up his own daily schedule on a weekly plan that I would approve. I would help them with their plans, but they would decide what they needed or wanted to learn in each skill and subject area. They could spend more time on one area if they were totally involved in it rather than change to another just because it was in their plan. I had found that for some these interruptions would so frustrate their flow that they’d give up on it.

The idea was allow them many choices, but to be accountable for their choices. There wasn’t any punishment for not following what they selected, but the opportunity for them to express or develop an intrinsic love for learning because they were making real choices.

Sometimes, they found that what they thought they liked or wanted was not what they were willing to continue to spend their time on. Since they were not pressured to learn the same things, they shared experiences and their interests (and skills) multiplied. They could work alone, with a partner, or a group of three. This oral language, shared experience I effectively used for decades with ESL and minority students.

It was bumpy the first two weeks as they were not used to making so many decisions each day—and being responsible for them. I helped them and they either had to stick to a plan or give a reason (which I always approved) of why they modified it. I had an advantage over other teachers who had not completed the mandates so I felt free to innovate.

The parents soon discovered what we were doing and they were as excited as I was at the result in students’ attitudes, their excitement and on task behavior. The kids were taken aback by their freedom and very few abused it as their cooperative behaviors also multiplied.

I had already taught them about the process of helping one another (in truth they were assistant teachers) and how to function effectively in groups. These needed to be taught or I.I. would have been impossible. They knew each had some talent or ability greater than some others so everyone was at times a teacher and at other times a student. No teasing or put downs because it inhibited learning and was—wrong!

One problem was that some would get perturbed when I would ask them to stop what they were doing because it was time for a group activity. I would ask for a vote and if most wanted to continue I would let them continue. I knew they would burn out if they stayed too long on activity without a change of pace so I "felt" their mood and would go on to a group activity. It was a hugely successful experiment.

The principal of the junior high I sent them told me he could easily tell my students because of their work ethic, responsibility, and cooperativeness. I’d add sense of humor and happiness.

A few years later I had a chance to do the same thing, but at the beginning of the year. I had played around with parts of I.I. during the intervening years, but I was always a probationary teacher without the freedom I needed. In this class I had almost total freedom because no one cared what I did as long as I kept them away from the rest of the students.

This was a group of twenty-four of the most academically handicapped and emotionally disturbed third to sixth graders in an all minority school that was the focus of civil rights movement in our school district. I had three groups of siblings and one family with five of them together and what went on at home continued at school. Everyone said I was crazy and for a while I agreed.

In the previous class the average IQ was 125 and the reading levels from sixth to twelfth. This group was mainly primer and first grade level readers with attention spans of five minutes max. The first few weeks I spent most of my time breaking up fights in class and trying to teach them some semblance of civil behavior. Any whole class teaching or discussions were impossible.

So, I focused on teaching them table games and spent a lot of time in physical education activities teaching them skills and—sportsmanship. I emptied the teachers’ supply room of unused technology and science materials. I brought in all kinds of old and new books and workbooks that they sometimes examined. They enjoyed "playing" with the old filmstrip projectors and reel-to-reel tape recorders. What they taped even the Net wouldn’t allow now. I had a TV set, a radio, a caroms board and later—a ping pong table. Everything was going on at the same time. Now I’d last a minute in there before I’d run out screaming.

Because I taught them to play many different games without squabbling, how to use technology, and the long periods outside for physical education; it allowed me to develop the necessary rapport to begin to work with small groups and individuals. Whole class lessons remained impossible.

It was the uses of TV that led to civil discussions. I taught them plot, character development, theme, sequence, cause and effect, and inference, which were the basics of reading. I tested them using a culture-fair test (Raven’s Matrices) and explained the test "proved" that they were intelligent and could learn. I had to undo all the negatives they had believed about themselves.

Once they believed they were not "stupid." they asked me to teach them how to read. I had said that during our TV discussions that the kinds of questions they asked and their understanding of why people did what they did "proved" they were truly intelligent.

They had been together three months when our new superintendent dropped in unannounced. He and I talked for almost an hour and only one child interrupted to ask a question. The super was amazed at how long they remained on task without any help or directions from me. This is part of what I mean by a self-sustaining classroom. The other was a few months later I could leave the room for up to an hour doing my head teacher duties without returning to chaos. Many of these same students later also helped as mediators in breaking up or preventing fights and conflicts.

As the years passed I added many other facets as I perfected this technique. In most schools as head teacher I was able to leave my classes unattended for long periods without serious incidents. I would return and most had been on task and few problems had arisen because the students had been taught that responsibility goes with their freedom. Any teacher leaving her room unattended would be impossible to do now because of increased litigation.

This type of classroom is NOT for everyone and should not be made mandatory. Many excellent teachers want and need supervision and trade the freedom (for teachers as well as students) that this needs for the security that comes from closely following a prescribed curriculum. They should not be forced to do this.

For those interested in developing the self-sustaining classroom my books would help. They are on www.imaginativecurriculum.com.

The most useful books: The Complete Teacher (free in PDF)—school system realities and possibilities created for my education classes; Teacher Under a Microscope, Xlibris.com, 2001– a book based on the U.S. Department of Education’s ethnographic research on four teachers’ methods of integration; mine was considered an effective new method; OUR EXTRAORDINARY YEAR in DAD’S CLASS, Xlibris.com, 2000 - bringing in New Age ideas and classroom business; Racism: 70’s Style, Xlibris.com, 2000—racism in one city; They Touched My Life, Xlibris.com, 2000 - the beginning of the development of my ideas. Abuses of Power in Education: Challenging Practically Everything, Outskirts Press 2008 – besides examining abuses of power it demonstrates that we ask the wrong questions and therefore I ask different questions about education and its policies and practices. These are available on Amazon and Barnes & Noble.

About the Author:

After spending forty-three years in classrooms teaching at every grade from K to 12 in four large school districts, Dr. Rose, semi-retired as a university professor and supervising teacher. He was known for his innovations, which he claims he developed by asking the right questions and challenging the status quo Many of his successes came from what he and his wife learned as they raised a yours, mine, and ours, blended family of seven.

The Importance of Nuclear Energy

by Gioietta Kuo

INTRODUCTION

About two years ago, the consensus of world’s eminent climatologists like Sir David King and Dr James Hansen were unified in their opinion that the world could survive eventually 450 ppm - parts per million, of CO2 (then at 385 ppm) in the atmosphere. Even so, according to them, there is no time to lose, the world’s governments should adopt a radically different energy policy to eradicate fossil fuel use. If we continue ‘business as usual’ in the next ten 10 years then the planet will reach a point of no return.

Since then, 2 years have passed, there has been no drastic reduction in CO2 emission in the world and CO2 concentration has increased by 2 ppm per year. In the meantime, more and more signs of global warming, such as the sharp rise in arctic temperature and Greenland ice melt, together with an improved study of data of the earth’s climate history have the climatologists alarmed. Led by James Hansen and some Yale climatologists [1] they now maintain the optimum ppm for CO2 level should be 350. This means we are already generating too much CO2 . Coal is the the main culprit, for according to IEA [2], the share of coal generated electricity world wide accounts for 41%, and the forecast for 2030 is not very different.

Currently we are living at the juncture where there is a shortage of energy. Both sources of gas and oil are on the wane, we know coal emits too much CO2. What then are the energy sources we can rely on?

Though we are very much aware that fossil fuel needs to be eliminated, the whole trouble with our society’s inability to eliminate fossil fuel in our economy, which is mainly coal, is the fact that we use it as baseload. In other words, power stations produce electricity 24 hours a day and our national grid distributes it to users across the nation. Since most of the power stations today burn coal or oil, we cannot not avoid large emissions of Green House Gas, GHG, notably CO2 which generates one ton of CO2 per Megawatt-hour. In addition, it emits, mercury, sulfur dioxide and other polluting elements.

ALTERNATIVE SOURCES OF FUEL

Therefore it is natural to turn to alternative renewable sources of energy like wind, solar, biofuel, hydro and tidal etc with wind being the dominant energy as solar panels are at present still comparatively too expensive. The advantage of renewables are twofold, the energy is for free and they do not emit CO2.

However, the big catch is: wind does not blow nor the sun shine all the time, therefore a backup source of energy is required during the lull. This is where the baseload comes in and under most circumstances we go back to coal as baseload. Whenever alternative sources of energy are discussed, nuclear energy is the Cinderella, often ignored. This is lamentable because in fact nuclear reactors are the only baseload which can replace coal because it does not emit CO2 and can produce electricity 24 hours a day.

However, environmentalist are very reluctant to replace coal by nuclear reactors. Their argument is that we can use coal so long as it is ‘clean coal’. What does ‘clean coal’ mean?

CLEAN COAL - CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE, CCS

It would certainly be a way out of our impasse if we could continue to use coal. However, if one examines the various steps involved in this process, one would see there are gigantic obstacles [3].

CCS collects the CO2 escaping from the flue of the fossil fueled power plants, liquefy it, transport it and feed it down pipes reaching thousands of feet underground to some suitable geological layer where hopefully the CO2 will stay put for at least a 100 years.

In 2005, world produced 26.6 Gigatons of CO2. We can convert the weight to the volume of liquid CO2 at point of liquefaction with density 0.47 gm/mL (Milli Liter) [4], so the volume of liquid CO2 is: 56.6 x 109 meter3. This is a vast amount equivalent to a volume given by: 3.8 km ( 2.4 miles) x 3.8 km( 2.4 miles) x 3.8 km( 2.4miles)

Now, all this volume of CO2 has been liquefied as CO2 gas escapes from the flue and then transported to the chosen geological layers, down many pipes drilled many thousands of feet underground with bores no larger than 9 inches in diameter. All this has to be done within one year. For comparison, the total amount of crude oil extracted worldwide came to 4 Gigatons in 2005 [4], which is only 15% of the volume we proposed to put underground bearing in mind also that the infrastructure of oil extraction has been put in place during almost the whole of last century. To capture the projected 57 Gigatons in 2050 one would need 32,000 pipes each of annual capacity 1-5 megatons [3]; that is 15 times the world‘s annual crude oil extraction.

In the report on CCS by IPCC in 2007 [3], it concludes that because of the technical complexity, CCS is not realistically possible before 2050 in the US and since CCS itself would need 10 - 44% more electricity than without, developing countries, both because of technological complexity and cost are not likely to adopt it.

So far, clean coal has been touted as the solution to solving the problem of CO2 emission from coal power stations. But it seems that the tide is changing and many who are advocating clean coal are beginning to realize that the sheer quantity of CO2 produced annually by the world is just too much to put underground. As well as the fact that the technology is too expensive and not realizable for the whole world to adopt.

So the following remark by James Hansen, one of the foremost climatologists and one who is most vociferous and politically active, is interesting not only because of the volte-face about clean coal but the vehemence of his anger against governments, probably because he has for so long been traveling tirelessly around the world pleading with governments without effect.

Following is an excerpt from “The Observer” of Feb. 15 2009 by James Hansen: "Coal is not only the largest fossil fuel reservoir of carbon dioxide, it is the dirtiest fuel. Coal is polluting the world’s oceans and streams with mercury, arsenic and other dangerous chemicals. The dirtiest trick that governments play on their citizens is the pretense that they are working on “clean coal” or that they will build power plants that are “capture ready” in case technology is ever developed to capture all pollutants."

Hansen wants to shut down coal but he has nothing to replace it. Well well, he will soon come to nuclear!

WHY IS NUCLEAR POWER SO IMPORTANT?

At this juncture in time, the answer to this question is already clear: if “clean coal” is not a workable option, there is only nuclear energy which can replace fossil fuel as baseload. Without baseload, renewable energy cannot tap into the smart grid, that is a national grid which embraces all energy sources, wind and solar farms far away and electricity generated from power stations.

It is interesting to look at present US distribution of electricity generated by fuel:

coal 48.7%
nuclear 19.4%
gas 21.5%
hydro 6.0%
renewable 2.5%

The Obama government has ambitious plans for renewable energy, which is 10% by 2012 and 25% by 2025. The European Community EU has similar plan of up to 20% of wind and solar by 2020. Whether these targets are achievable remains to be seen. Looking into the near future of next 10 years, it is clear that renewable energy sources can only supply 10-20% of our energy needs and the rest has to come from our baseload. So here is the dilemma the world faces, is the baseload to remain coal? or will it be nuclear? Most likely, coal will be gradually phased out, to be replaced by nuclear power. There are many industrial uses of nuclear power which are becoming more important by day, For example; use of nuclear reactors for hydrogen production, transport and desalination.

MOTOR TRANSPORT

It is already clear that the future of motor car is going to be in the electric and hybrid kind. Although they have been much lauded by the Greens as environmentally friendly, in the sense that there is no tailpipe emission, no pollution, but one must not forget that plugging into power supply simply means replacing gasoline with electricity. Of course, the electricity comes from the grid. As the transport sector, that is electric and hybrid cars, increases its demand for electricity, there will be a greater demand for baseload electricity. Where does one get carbon free electricity? Mainly nuclear power, followed by renewable.

As the demand for electricity grows, the smart grid, which embraces both renewable energy sources from far away countryside as well as grid in population centers from baseloads has to grow. The contribution of nuclear reactors will be in providing electricity for cities. In short, energy from gasoline will be phased out by energy from nuclear power.

NUCLEAR DESALINATION

Global water scarcity is fast becoming the next major problem the world has to face. As global warming has brought higher temperatures over the last few years, the situation of water shortage is only going to get worse.

The world has always had a water shortage problem. China, with 7% of total world’s water resources while having 20% OF the world’s population, is no stranger to debilitating droughts. Endemic droughts affect the south west of US, Middle East. As the equatorial regions are expanding [5 ] making the subtropical areas more dry and arid, southern Australia is becoming drier, which not only affects its agriculture but its drinking water.

The statistics of water are already scary. It is estimated that one fifth of the world’s population does not have access to safe drinking water and that this proportion will grow as the world’s population grows. Already over one billion people suffer from water shortages and 30 countries get more than a third of their water from outside their boundaries - an obvious source of disputes and instability, which will sure to lead to future wars.

There are two distinct technologies for desalination:

1) Reverse Osmosis (RO) Osmosis describes the process by which water diffuses across a semi-permeable cell membrane in a biological system. In RO, the sea water is forced across an artificial membrane by applying high pressure with electric pumps so that the water diffuses through the membrane while the salts are left behind. The process is electricity intensive, in the range of 3-6 kWh for a cubic meter (1000 liters) of water produced.

2) Multi Effect Distillation (MED) and Multistage Flash Distillation (MSF) processes steam and is capable of using waste heat from power plants. This is a simple distillation process requiring heat at 70-130 degree C and use 25-200 kWh/cubic meter. This may not sound competitive with RO but it is simply a question of ready availability of heat versus electricity which normally comes from burning fossil fuels. Though a new version of MED (MED-MVC) is reported at 10 kWh/cubic meter and is competitive with RO.

Nuclear desalination is a new technology which combines the cogeneration of electricity and heat for desalination in an integrated plant using nuclear reactors. There are two distinct advantages for nuclear desalination:

Since desalination is electricity intensive and the electricity comes from fossil fuel power stations. Using nuclear reactors does not produce GHG.

As the price of oil and gas rise, water from nuclear desalination has now become competitive with desalination from fossil fuel produced water.

Conventionally much of heat generated from nuclear reactors have to be dissipated any way and what better use can there be than using it in the distillation of sea water. Small and medium sized reactors serving small cities by the coast are most suitable for desalination, often with cogeneration of electricity using low pressure steam from the turbine and hot sea water feed from the final cooling system. The most usual systems generate electricity in the 500 MW range and produce water in the range 80-100,000 cubic meters/day and 200-500,000 cubic meters/day.

Much research and data compilation have been done by the International Atomic Energy Agency IAEA [6] in many countries. A French study for Tunisia compared 4 nuclear power options with combined cycle gas turbine and found that nuclear desalination costs were about half those of the gas plant.

The feasibility of integrated nuclear desalination plants has been proven with over 150 reactor-years of experience, chiefly in Kazakhstan, India, and Japan. There are more than 50 new plants in the planning stage in the world today. They are in Korea, Russia, Pakistan, Tunisia, Morocco, Egypt, Algeria, Libya, Iran, Qatar, Jordan and Argentina.

There are different uses in these countries. Japan for example uses the desalinated water for reactor cooling.

Another interesting strategy of cogeneration is to run power reactor at full capacity to meet the grid load, but when the grid demand is low, use part of it to drive pump for RO desalination.

According to IAEA, the cost of nuclear generated water in China would be quite cost competitive with fossil generated water - around 5.25 yuan/cubic meter.

Japan and China have the highest research and development spending in nuclear desalination to lead the future markets which are booming [7]. All in all, China is projected to produce 2.5 million cubic meters/day by 2012.

FUTURE OF NUCLEAR POWER

We have not discussed in this is paper the various political and weapons aspect of nuclear power which has greatly influenced the history and use of this energy ever since the atom bomb and the second world war. In fact there are two aspects of nuclear energy: the weapons aspect which is embroiled in politics and the peaceful use for energy production. It is highly lamentable that many, not only the Greens, have got the two issues inextricably intertwined and in the process have throw away the baby out with the bath water. In fact, countries like France and Japan have made extensive use of nuclear reactors for peaceful uses, France deriving 80% of its electricity from nuclear energy without major mishaps.

Ever since our awareness of the impending shortage of oil and gas and the many ill affects of CO2 from burning fossil fuels, nuclear reactors are staging a come back. This is not a question of principle, but rather on the market place also. Nuclear reactors are now competitive with other fuels.

There is also a pragmatic aspect which we cannot ignore, that is for as far as one can see into the near future, nuclear energy provides, even though many environmentalists wish to ignore it, the only baseload if one is to discard fossil fuel - oil, gas and coal.

Recent stand-off between Russia and Ukraine on the much sought after gas for EU countries is a harbinger of what is to come. It is a contradiction for major countries like those of EU, to have a policy of no coal power at the same time as no nuclear power. So, there is no doubt that one day there will be an expansion of nuclear energy in EU, US, China, India and others. Already, since the gas stand-off, Italy, Slovakia, Bulgaria and UK are now pushing forward to restart old reactors or build new ones.

References:

[1] carbon dioxide already in danger zone, Hansen et al science Daily www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081108155834.htm

[2] Coal to remain world’s top power source: http://www.enn.com/energy/article/38655

[3] IPCC report feb 2007 http://www.mnp.nl/ipcc/

[4] Vaclav Smil, talk at Paris energy conference http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~vsmil

[5] Steve Connor, “Expanding tropics a threat to millions” “independent” Dec 3 2007 www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change

[6] World Nuclear Association www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf71.html

[7] Helmut Kaiser consultancy www.hkc22.com/nucleardesalination.html

About the Author

Gioietta Kuo PhD is an advisor and senior fellow, American Center For International Policy Studies, former scientist, Princeton University, former fellow, St Hilda's College, Oxford University, UK. She may be contacted at: kuopet@comcast.net