Contributing Editor Peter Fairley has been tracking energy technologies and their environmental implications globally for two decades, charting the engineering and policy innovations that are turning renewable energies and electric vehicles into mainstream competitors. He is especially interested in the power grid and power market redesigns required to phase out reliance on fossil fuels.
The ongoing confrontation risks widespread death and contamination—including to the fertile Ukrainian breadbasket that helped feed the world until Russia’s invasion. In a simulated fallout map produced by Ukraine’s national weather service and posted Sunday, a radiation plume spreads northwest and reaches Poland and Lithuania within 72 hours.
In Ukraine, which endured the 1986 Chernobyl accident, fear of another nuclear disaster is fueling a debate over Zaporizhzhia’s continued operation amidst the mayhem. Nikolai Steinberg, a former chief engineer at Chernobyl and member of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s governing board, called running the plant “a crime” in an email interview with IEEE Spectrum. That’s because stopping would cool off the operating reactors, buying the beleaguered operators time to avert nuclear meltdowns if, say, shelling sparks a station-wide blackout.
Backers of Steinberg’s position are urging Ukraine’s nuclear regulatory agency to order a shutdown. (To date, plant operators have continued to respond to orders from Ukraine’s grid operator.) But Ukraine’s Ministry of Energy and nuclear power firm Energoatom say a broader risk calculus supports keeping the plant running. As Energoatom stated in June: “Disconnection is impossible from a technical, security, economic, or political point of view.” Factors cited to justify operation include the possibility that cooling the plant will make it easier for Russia to transfer its generation to its own grid, and the need for power exports to Europe that deliver revenue and political support.
Last month, Energoatom increased generation at Zaporizhzhia by ordering plant staff, working under Russian supervision, to start up a third reactor for the first time since the plant’s 4 March capture. At the time the Minister of Energy was pushing Europe’s grid regulators to rapidly expand capacity limits for Ukrainian electricity exports.
“We are in a nightmare,” is how Jan Haverkamp, a nuclear safety expert with Greenpeace International, described the quandary facing Ukraine and the world in an email to IEEE Spectrum. Haverkamp and other Western experts say ceasing power generation would be “the wisest thing to do” under normal circumstances. Of course, adds Haverkamp, there’s nothing normal about Zaporizhzhia’s situation.
Nuclear Roulette
The debate over operating Zaporizhzhia boiled over when artillery shells started hitting the plant site late last month. Which side is responsible for that shelling remains contested, though Western security experts argue that Russia has more incentives to risk an accident. Equipment damaged in the attacks include:
The 5 August substation blast prompted one of Zaporizhzhia’s three operating units to automatically shut down. It also left the plant with just one grid connection, compared with 7 preinvasion connections. That jeopardizes the entire plant, which uses grid power to cool all six of its reactors and spent fuel pools. Energoatom CEO Petro Kotin said it put Zaporizhzhia “very close” to the situation that produced the 2011 Fukushima meltdowns.
Batteries and diesel backup generators are designed to power the plant’s cooling systems for 10 days. But Haverkamp says “an emergency situation or even meltdown” is possible well before then. Alleged corruption before Russia’s invasion raises doubts about the reliability of Zaporizhzhia’s backup systems. Haverkamp also cites the plant’s “exhausted and decimated” Ukrainian staff, and the possibility of a power struggle with their Russian occupiers over how to manage an emergency.
Ukraine’s state nuclear-safety center projects that Zaporizhzhia’s operating units could experience reactor damage in as little as 3 hours without power, according to a May 2022 assessment revealed last week by Kyiv-based MIND. Horrific consequences could follow. The agency that manages the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone projected last week that shells or rockets hitting Zaporizhzhia might unleash an accident 10 times worse than Chernobyl’s. The agency stated that radioactive emissions could kill tens of thousands of people, displace 2 million, pollute an area three times the size of Ukraine, and create a long-term exclusion zone as large as 30,000 square kilometers.
Olena Pareniuk, a senior nuclear safety expert at Ukraine’s National Academy of Sciences, told Ukrainian Radio last week that Zaporizhzhia could yield the world’s first magnitude-8 nuclear accident. Chernobyl and Fukushima were sevens.
Hence, the call to suspend power generation. According to the state nuclear-safety center’s expert assessment, reviewed by Spectrum, moving all reactors to a “cold stop” would extend the delay between full power loss and core damage from 3 hours to 27 hours. Stifling the nuclear reactions that produce energy would allow short-lived fission products in the reactors to dissipate, reducing the harm caused by radioactive emissions. “The overall risk would decrease,” says Ed Lyman, director of nuclear power safety at the Union of Concerned Scientists. He says proactive shutdown makes sense, just as nuclear plants in the United States do when hurricanes head their way.
The agency stated that radioactive emissions could kill tens of thousands of people, displace 2 million, pollute an area three times the size of Ukraine, and create a long-term exclusion zone as large as 30,000 square kilometers.
Reports suggest that Ukraine’s nuclear regulator may be moving toward ordering a cold stop during the occupation, heeding counsel from the agency’s advisory board. On 4 August, the board recommended a cold stop requirement for two of the plant’s four off-line units whose turbine halls appear to be occupied by Russian weapons.
However, at least one member of the board, state nuclear-safety-center representative Viktor Shenderovych, proposed stopping all six units. That call is supported by Georgiy Balakan, a former special advisory to the president of Energoatom, who worked with two independent groups of Ukrainian experts to fashion the world’s first industry-grade risk assessments of nuclear power operation under hostilities.
The independent calculations were performed using standard industry codes and Energoatom’s probabilistic risk models of Zaporizhzhia, developed with participation of U.S. national laboratories. And they look at risk across the site rather than just individual units, so they can spot larger accidents that happen when one event disrupts multiple systems. The analyses, reviewed in a recent LinkedIn post, project that “common-cause” failures from military action significantly increase the probability of reactor core damage when multiple units are operating.
Demilitarizing Zaporizhzhia
In a 16 August statement to Spectrum, Energoatom CEO Petro Kotin rejected calls to stop nuclear generation, arguing that they play into Russia’s hands.
Kotin claims that stopping Zaporizhzhia’s internal power generation “may cause an emergency” by making it more reliant on off-site power. But his primary argument is that a shutdown would facilitate Russia’s apparent plans to permanently annex the plant, along with the rest of occupied southeastern Ukraine. He notes that Russian state nuclear power giant Rosatom has acknowledged that it has staff at the plant, saying they provide “technical, consulting, communications, and other assistance.” Sergey Kiriyenko, the Kremlin’s point man for Russian-occupied Ukraine, led Rosatom from 2005 to 2016.
Ukraine was connected to Russia’s grid until the invasion, when it disconnected and quickly synchronized instead with Europe’s grid. But Crimea, occupied since 2014, remains on the Russian grid. Kotin claims that shutdown is a prerequisite for switching Zaporizhzhia (and the intervening southeastern lines to Crimea) back to Russia’s grid.
A Ukrainian expert contacted by Spectrum counters that claim, however. He states that if Zaporizhzhia keeps running it can power its own systems while the regional grid is realigned. It creates some risk, but Russia’s forces have proven their willingness to endanger lives for months.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy says only restoration of full Ukrainian control can guarantee its safety. He has also called for new sanctions against Russia that target Rosatom, which remains largely unscathed. Last week 42 nations including the United States, Canada, Turkey, and most European states endorsed Zelenskyy’s call for Russia to immediately withdraw from the Zaporizhzhia plant. Not surprisingly, Russia rejected that call. Its Security Council representative explained that Russian forces must stay to protect against “provocations and terrorist attacks.”
Nuclear safety experts such as Haverkamp at Greenpeace International endorse United Nations secretary general António Guterres’s proposed solution: Russian withdrawal coupled with creation of a demilitarized zone around the plant. The problem is finding a neutral international body to take charge. The most obvious choice, the International Atomic Energy Agency, is viewed with suspicion by Ukraine. Many IAEA staffers spent their careers at Rosatom, including the agency’s deputy director.
Haverkamp is sympathetic: “I am not really sure whether the IAEA can deliver that, as locked in [as] they are with Rosatom and Russia.”
Kathy Pretz is editor in chief for The Institute, which covers all aspects of IEEE, its members, and the technology they're involved in. She has a bachelor's degree in applied communication from Rider University, in Lawrenceville, N.J., and holds a master's degree in corporate and public communication from Monmouth University, in West Long Branch, N.J.
At Mellanox, based in Yokneam Illit, Israel, Kagan had overseen the development of high-performance networking for computing and storage in cloud data centers. The company made networking equipment such as adapters, cables, and high-performance switches, as well as a new type of processor, the DPU. The company’s high-speed InfiniBand products can be found in most of the world’s fastest supercomputers, and its high-speed Ethernet products are in most cloud data centers, Kagan says.
The IEEE senior member’s work is now focused on integrating a wealth of Nvidia technologies to build accelerated computing platforms, whose foundation are three chips: the GPU, the CPU, and the DPU, or data-processing unit. The DPU can support the ability to offload, accelerate, and isolate data center workloads, reducing CPU and GPU workloads.
“At Mellanox we worked on the data center interconnect, but at Nvidia we are connecting state-of-the-art computing to become a single unit of computing: the data center,” Kagan says. Interconnects are used to link multiple servers and combine the entire data center into one, giant computing unit.
“I have access and an open door to Nvidia technologies,” he says. “That’s what makes my life exciting and interesting. We are building the computing of the future.”
From Intel to Mellanox
Kagan was born in St. Petersburg, Russia—then known as Leningrad. After he graduated high school in 1975, his family moved to Israel. As with many budding engineers, his curiosity led him to disassemble and reassemble things to figure out how they worked. And, with many engineers in the family, he says, pursuing an engineering career was an easy decision.
He attended the Technion, Israel’s Institute of Technology, because “it was one of the best engineering universities in the world,” he says. “The reason I picked electrical engineering is because it was considered to be the best faculty in the Technion.”
Kagan graduated in 1980 with a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering. He joined Intel in Haifa, Israel, in 1983 as a design engineer and eventually relocated to the company’s offices in Hillsboro, Ore., where he worked on the 80387 floating-point coprocessor. A year later, after returning to Israel, Kagan served as an architect of the i8060XP vector processor and then led and managed design of the Pentium MMX microprocessor.
During his 16 years at Intel, he worked his way up to chief architect. In 1999 he was preparing to move his family to California, where he would lead a high-profile project for the company. Then a former coworker at Intel, Eyal Waldman, asked Kagan to join him and five other acquaintances to form Mellanox.
Kagan had been turning down offers to join startups nearly every week, he recalls, but Mellanox, with its team of cofounders and vision, drew him in. He says he saw it as a “compelling adventure, an opportunity to build a company with a culture based on the core values I grew up on: excellence, teamwork, and commitment.”
During his more than 21 years there, he said, he had no regrets.
“It was one of the greatest decisions I’ve ever made,” he says. “It ended up benefiting all aspects of my life: professionally, financially—everything.”
InfiniBand, the startup’s breakout product, was designed for what today is known as cloud computing, Kagan says.
“We took the goodies of InfiniBand and bolted them on top of the standard Ethernet,” he says. “As a result, we became the vendor of the most advanced network for high-performance computing. More than half the machines at the top 500 computer companies use the Mellanox interconnect, now the Nvidia interconnect.
“Most of the cloud providers, such as Facebook, Azure, and Alibaba, use Nvidia’s networking and compute technologies. No matter what you do on the Internet, you’re most likely running through the chip that we designed.”
Kagan says the partnership between Mellanox and Nvidia was “natural,” as the two companies had been doing business together for nearly a decade.
“We delivered quite a few innovative solutions as independent companies,” he says.
One of Kagan's key priorities is Nvidia’s Bluefield DPU. The data center infrastructure on a chip offloads, accelerates, and isolates a variety of networking, storage, and security services.Nvidia
BlueField and Omniverse supercomputers
As CTO of Nvidia for the past two years, Kagan has shifted his focus from pure networking to the integration of multiple Nvidia technologies including building BlueField data-processing units and the Omniverse real-time graphics collaboration platform.
He says Nvidia’s vision for the data center of the future is based on its three chips: CPU, DPU, and GPU.
“These three pillars are connected with a very efficient and high-performance network that was originally developed at Mellanox and is being further developed at Nvidia,” he says.
Development of the BlueField DPUs is now a key priority for Nvidia. It is a data center infrastructure on a chip, optimized for high-performance computing. It also offloads, accelerates, and isolates a variety of networking, storage, and security services.
“In the data center, you have no control over who your clients are,” Kagan says. “It may very well happen that a client is a bad guy who wants to penetrate his neighbors’ or your infrastructure. You’re better off isolating yourself and other customers from each other by having a segregated or different computing platform run the operating system, which is basically the infrastructure management, the resource management, and the provisioning.”
Kagan is particularly excited about the Omniverse, a new Nvidia product that uses Pixar’s Universal Scene Description software for creating virtual worlds—what has become known as the metaverse. Kagan describes the 3D platform as “creating a world by collecting data and making a physically accurate simulation of the world.”
Car manufacturers are using the Omniverse to test-drive autonomous vehicles. Instead of physically driving a car on different types of roads under various conditions, data about the virtual world can be generated to train the AI models.
“You can create situations that the car has to handle in the real world but that you don’t want it to meet in the real world, like a car crash,” Kagan says. “You don’t want to crash the car to train the model, but you do need to have the model be able to handle hazardous conditions on the road.”
The Omniverse platform can generate millions of kilometers of synthetic driving data in orders of magnitude faster than actually driving the car.
Nvidia is investing heavily in technology for self-driving cars, Kagan says.
The company is also building what it calls the most powerful AI supercomputer for climate science: Earth-2, a digital twin of the planet. Earth-2 is designed to continuously run models to predict climate and weather events at both the regional and global levels.
Kagan says the climate modeling technology will enable people to try mitigation techniques for global warming and see what their impact is likely to be in 50 years.
The company is also working closely with the health care industry to develop AI-based technologies. Its supercomputers are helping to identify cancer by generating synthetic data to enable researchers to train their models to better identify tumors. Its AI and accelerated computing products also assist with drug discovery and genome research, Kagan says.
“We are actually moving forward at a fairly nice pace,” he says. “But the thing is that you always need to reinvent yourself and do the new thing faster and better, and basically win with what you have and not look for infinite resources. This is what commitment means.”
This white paper describes some of the commonly used safety mechanisms in an automotive-ready GPIO library suite. It will then describe how safety related deliverables are helpful to SoC integrators in their design of safe SoCs.
"electric" - Google News
August 20, 2022 at 10:09PM
https://ift.tt/ZtpuC9c
We Need More Than Just Electric Vehicles - IEEE Spectrum
"electric" - Google News
https://ift.tt/wEJvs73
https://ift.tt/xdML9Cr
Bagikan Berita Ini
0 Response to "We Need More Than Just Electric Vehicles - IEEE Spectrum"
Post a Comment