Monday, October 27, 2008

Midterm Report Clarification

The few posts below contain the information required for the midterm report. The few last posts refer to the beginning stages of research in our project of hybrid cars. I cover the sociological aspects of hybrid cars by focusing on societies around the world with the introduction of hybrid cars and their reaction to such a dramatic change. I will examine why our society has not become more open to the possibility of hybrid cars and how they could be advertised effectively to cause families to actually go through with buying energy efficient vehicles. 

I finished examining my carbon footprint a few posts down, under the post titled "Carbon Footprint Investigation" because it was easier to just re-edit the post under the websites that I had previously posted. 

An interesting side note: This weekend I went to NYU to visit a few of my friends, and on Friday night I had the opportunity to accompany my boyfriend on a tour around the city about Freeganism for his sociology class. We dug through trash bags and found so much packaged food that was perfectly fine. Many stores are required to throw away their extra food, even if the food is fresh or just made that day. We found a bunch of plastic containers of packaged sushi. The woman leading us on the tour, who was a freegan, pointed out to us that not only is a considerable amount of food wasted, but a considerable amount of plastic is wasted in the process as well. Its interesting because this is something that many people don't even realize. I feel like this is a huge hidden/unacknowledged problem relating to the environmental issues of our day.

Friday, October 24, 2008

"In 20 or 40 years" all the automotive group's cars will be hybrids, the man in charge of Toyota's research and development, design and product development, Kazuo Okatmoto, told the car industry magazine Automotive News Europe. "And it won't just be Toyota. All makers will have hybrids," he said. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4015831.stm


hybrid taxi cabs? buses?

Hybrid Car Project:

Social aspects:
-how do you convince American society to buy hybrid cars?
-how can hybrid cars be effectively marketed to encourage Americans 
-how does hybrids affect daily lives?
-how were hybrid cars marketed in Europe?
-why is our country behind in energy efficient car production?
-why do we have different efficiency standards than Europe?
-are they safe? why aren't families interested in buying them?
-what countries are ahead in energy efficient car production?
-tax incentives for hybrid cars?

-Diesel is popular in Europe, but this is more of a short term trend. 
“Diesel is popular in Europe, clearly, but it’s a short-term trend,” said Laurent Aebi, a product specialist at Honda Motor Co., which was displaying its new FCX fuel cell car, powered by an electric motor that uses hydrogen as its energy source. “I give it another 10 years maximum. After that it will be the hybrid car. But both the diesel car and hybrid car are a transition as we head to fuel cell cars or pure electric cars.” 
Yoshio Ishizaka, an executive vice president at Toyota Motor Corp., the world’s second-biggest carmaker, went further. “Hybrid is really not an intermediate technology," he said, predicting it would even power sports cars some day. "We think hybrid is the technology we have to see for the future.”
The long-term energy picture
Currently, gasoline accounts for 98 percent of energy used in transport. The world consumes about 80 million barrels of oil a day, a number that continues to increase. American consumption alone is expected to grow nearly 50 percent over the next 20 years.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7077248/#storyContinued

Thursday, October 23, 2008

USGS Energy Resources Program Plenary

USGS Energy Resources Program-energy research and info for natural resources security, energy mix scenarios, climate change models
-don't handle solar or wind power-handled by other department

Global Conventional oil resources-took a picture of map of wold and expressed areas with highest oil resources and production
-shows the disconnect 
-assessed that about 650 billion barrels of oil left to be found
-showed map of domestic oil production in U.S., but alot of these area are not accessible for various reasons, such as economics. 
-Our country has a long history of activity, but significant potential remains, esp. with unconventional)continuous) resources and reserve growth

Reserve growth-when group estimates resources in the reserve, estimate number, usually a low number

unconventional resources: an important part of the national energy potential
-include gas hydrates, methane...

Conventional-drill rig, reservoir of oil
unconventional-not yet produced, not economic, on the horizon
-now no longer referred to as unconventional, but continuous, resources that are more promising
-unconventional production is a growing source of U.S. gas supply
-unconventional gas can become conventional and add to energy mix
-barnett shale gas production in texas
-new ways of producing resources popping up every few years

Truly unconventional-gas hydrates-found underground in ocean sediments, in the artic
-offer great potential
US has between 200,000 to 320,000 TCFG of in place gas in the form of gas hydrate
-if just a small fraction can be produced, that could dwarf the more than 1200 TCFG of UD conventional natural gas reserves and technically recoverable resources
-concentration of gas hydrates varies in different formations-gas hydrates in sand have more produceable potential

James brought up an interesting point in class. All of the other material that has been presented to us has been highly criticized by various sources, for example, "An Inconvenient Truth". This plenary, however, concentrated more on scientific fact, which in a sense seemed refreshing. 

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

Class 10/22

website used to find U.S. crude oil field production (thousands barrels per day) :http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/mcrfpus2a.htm

From the chart (starting at the 1850s), we averaged the numbers of thousands barrels per day together of each decade and then multiplied by 365 to find the average per year of each decade. Aka, add numbers of each year together, divide by ten, and multiply by 365. We did this for each decade from 1850 to the 1990s, and for 2000s we averaged the years 2000-2007 and divided by 8 and multiplied y 365. 

Carbon Footprint Investigation

Source: https://climatefriendly.com/shop?gclid=CJHnq_-7u5YCFQIWFQod3SdALw
When calculating my air travel, this website said my emissions calculate to 1 Tonnes. My air travel was pretty much nonexistent, except for one trip to Disney World for my senior class trip. The calculator estimated that a flight from Philadelphia to Florida was 2029 miles. I found some of the facts that this website offered concerning air travel to be extremely interesting, particularly when it is mentioned that a round trip flight for only one person between the U.S. and the UK creates the same amount of emissions as driving a car for more than a year. A round trip flight from Europe to Asia-Pacific has the same emissions as driving a car for up to two years! It amazes me that my one, short trip to Disney World, although it is no flight to Europe, could be just as harmful as months of driving! I think its interesting to think in these terms, nowadays when some families try to save money they may consider driving to Disney World rather than flying. Not only could driving there possibly save money, but it could help save our atmosphere. 

http://www.carboncounter.org/?gclid=CKnelOi9u5YCFQNvHgodMQwtLQ
With this website, I first calculated my emissions while living in Washington DC. Because I do not use a car here, my calculated emissions were considerably low. According to this source, I emit 5.05 metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. I emit only 4.07 metric tones per year in home electricity, where as the national average reaches 11.6 metric tones per year. While living in DC, I myself emit nothing in automobile emissions (!) as opposed to the national average of 5.02 metric tons per year. Of course this does not take into account the fact that I use a considerable amount of transportation to get around the city of to travel home (taxi cabs, trains, my parents driving me around, etc.). Unfortunately, my carbon footprint grew significantly (14.52 metric tons per year!) when I calculated my life at home in New Jersey. My use of electricity at home came very close to the national average of 11.16, climbing all the way up to 9.15 metric tons per year. My automobile use, a whopping 4.39 metric tones per year, came even closer to the national average of 5.02 metric tones per year. It startling to see such a contrast in these calculations. I think that the lower emissions in DC are partly caused by my growing sense of responsibility. Because I am forced to take care of my things, clean up after myself, etc., I seem to pay more attention to things like turning the tv off, unplugging my phone charger, printer, or camera charger. I've become more aware of my actions now that I don't have someone following behind me who would just turn off the tv or turn off the lights in the room. 

http://www.nature.org/initiatives/climatechange/calculator/
This carbon footprint calculator was by far my favorite. I found it to be the most comprehensive in several aspects. I calculated my household impact when living with my family of three in New Jersey, and found that my estimated greenhouse gas emissions are 48 tones of carbon dioxide equivalent per year, which is below the U.S. national average. The United States average of three people per household is about 80, and the world average is about 17 CO2 eq/year. I think that our carbon footprint is less than the national average because we have taken some steps to be energy efficient. Although we are by no means the most environmentally friendly family, we have taken steps such as buying an energy efficient Maytag washer and replacing some of our incandescent light bulbs with fluorescent light bulbs. I was able to calculate my individual carbon footprint within my family household and found that my estimated emissions are only 13 tons of CO2 eq/yr, which is also below the national average of 27 tons of CO2 eq/yr. However, it is much higher than the world average of 5.5 tons of CO2 eq/yr. Although my emissions do not compare to the world average, I believe that my impact may be less severe than that of the national average because I have taken steps to recycle whenever possible. If I see a bottle lying in the middle of the street, I pick it up and bring it to the nearest recycling can. I have even gone as far as carrying emptying bottles in my purse just so I can wait to recycle them. Sometimes I even take my friends bottles to prevent them from carelessly throwing them out. I also am a vegetarian, and have been my whole life, which seems to offset my emissions. I have also tried to eat organic food, although at this time in my life its not necessarily economically feasible. 

Conclusions:
When I calculated my carbon footprint in all of these sources, I found that my lack of air travel really minimizes my carbon footprint. This makes me feel a little bit better about my lack of travel. I was actually introduced to the carbon calculator during my senior year of high school in our Global Seminar class. We were all astounded at our personal impact. Some of classmates and I found that our emissions were not as intense in comparison to the national average, but were much more severe when compared to the world average. This unfortunately seemed to show that our country is a leading source in the energy crisis. It also shows that as much as we clamor for change from our government, we ourselves might not be making a considerable amount of effort, ESPECIALLY in the eyes of those living in other countries. 
My family and I have begun to make attempts in offsetting our emissions. We now buy energy efficient appliances when our older appliances cease to function. However, we have not made dramatic changes like getting rid of all of our inefficient appliances and immediately replacing them with energy efficient ones. But I think that we are taking a serious, yet gradual step, in the right direction. 

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

Beyond Oil: Chapters 3&4

I skimmed through chapter three because I wasn't able to follow the math of the Hubbert method, but I was able to somewhat understand the main concepts that Deffeyes was presenting. Chapter four was more comprehensible for my taste and I learned a great amount in the chapter. 

Things I learned:
-BTU=British Thermal Unit, enough heat to raise the temp of one pound of water by on degree fahrenheit.

-conventional sources of gas include solution gas (underground oil and gas dissolved in it separate into a froth of gas and oil as the pressure drops) gas caps (porous rock in some underground reservoirs contains more gas than the oil can dissolve so a separate 'gas cap' forms above the oil) the oil window (zone 7500 to 15000 feet) 

-I found it very interesting that gas flares of such intensity occur. I didn't realize that this process happened when gas or oil is produced. The first astronauts orbiting the earth found that the most prominent visible human effect was the gas flares in North Africa and the Middle East. I also discovered that methane is much more powerful as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. 

-Deffeyes talks about the possible introduction of widespread use of natural gas, for example to power cars. Deffeyes refers to the chicken-egg problem to describe the situation with natural gas, and says that because people will not buy cars powered by natural gas because filling stations don't exist, but filling stations don't exist because people do not buy cars powered by natural gas. Natural gas filling stations don't exist in the U.S. but are in service in Italy, New Zealand, and British Columbia. 

-Heat content determines the prices of different fossil fuels. 

-Unconventional sources of gas include swamp gas, coal bed gas, basin center gas, fractured shales and gas hydrates.


Friday, October 17, 2008

Class-10/17

Class Articles:

Population
-This is the first time that the population has increased so dramatically
-Causes the problem of running out of resources, such as food, water, etc.

Beyond Oil: Chapters 1&2

I found it really interesting when Deffeyes mentions that many plastics, fibers, solvents, pesticides, and coatings are made from oil and natural gas. I try to eliminate my use of plastic, such as using alternate bags at the grocery store, but I was never aware that this plastic was destructive in that sense. 

It's interesting to see his perspective. For oil man who is not an expert in public policy or environmental issues, he is very concerned about the issue of running out of oil. He doesn't seem particularly focused on the effect that oil has on the environment. His interest in creating alternative energy is based on the idea that we have reached the peak of oil consumption and that soon there will be nothing left.  At the end of the chapter, Deffeyes even states, "If oil were abundant and cheap, there would be no need to develop the other fuels." Its interesting to see some one who does not seem very concerned about the environment be so adamant about the energy crisis.

Thursday, October 16, 2008

An Inconvenient Truth: True or False?

article: Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth: unscientific?

Okay, first of all, I think thats it ridiculous that parents brought a case to court in an attempt to make distribution of an Inconvenient Truth illegal in the classroom. Even if the film lacked the presentation of a multitude of perspectives, I still think it serves its educational purpose by introducing students to at least some aspects of the argument. But anyway, let us examine the nine counts of scientific inaccuracy that the judge would Gore guilty of...
1. "A 7 meter rise in sea level will be caused by the melting of either west Antarctica or Greenland in the near future". Burton (the judge) seems to think that this scenario would only happen after mellennia, not in a matter of a few years. Gore only really says that Greenland's coasts will be dramatically flooded, he doesn't necessarily suggest that the country will be underwater in a few years. This flooding, however, supposedly has the potential to destroy life on the coast, which nonetheless is the habitat of humanity/animals, etc. Exerts seem to have several different opinions on this matter. The intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2007 predicts a rise in sea level by 59 cm by 2100 excluding the possible melting in Greenland and Antartica because of the extreme uncertainty, while James Hansen of NASA believes that it will rise several meters by 2100. So many varying reports hinders me form making my own decision about the matter because I'm not a sceintist, nor have I personally observed this data, etc. I'm not willing to make a strong claim on a topic that is so disputed when I myself have no concrete evidence. Nonetheless, I still think we should be safe an take steps to help the environment or prevent the further melting of the ice caps. I think we should take these steps just for the sake of our planets well being. I think there needs to be a point in time where we look beyond who is right and who is wrong, because there are always going to be dissenting opinions. Regardless, we need to unite together to make our planet a cleaner place. 

The second claim Burton holds Gore responsible for is that low-lying inhabited Pacific atolls are being inundated because of global warming. Burton claimed that no evacuations to nations such as New Zealand had occurred, yet in 2005, the people of the Carteret atoll in Papua New Guinea announced their imminent evacuation. This evacuation is scheduled to begin in 2008, supposedly. This article : http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2005/nov/25/science.climatechange
talks about the evacuation. For more than 30 years, 980 people have been living on the atolls. The evacuation will begin as soon as money is made available to the Papuan New Guinean regional government. The article states that by 2015 the islands are likely to be completely submerged. This has apparently been inevitable for 20 years, as storm surges and erosion have worsened so much that bits of the atolls have been breaking off from time to time. In 1995, Han island was completely inundated and another cut in half by the sea. The people there have nearly starved because salt water  destroyed many of their sources of food. For many years they have depended on emergency aid because the islanders barely have any money. Little source of transportation is provided in or out of the island. According to the Red Cross, the number of people in the Oceania region affected by weather-related disasters has soared by 65 times during the past 30 years because increased numbers of cyclones, droughts and floods. 
Although, these islands are totally different than the continents that Gore observes, they still serve as a model of what is to come in the future. Incidents of such severe island flood us prove that coasts of continents could be submerged and possibly change the entire map eventually. I think this is really scary thought and serves as a terrific point to support Gore. If anything at all, it sends us a warning that we need to do something about how we treat this planet, just in case these findings are true. I really don't want myself or my children or my grandchildren, or even my great great grandchildren to end up under water. People seem to be so selfish when it comes to the future. Because it doesn't affect them, they make no effort to plan for those in the future. I don't understand how people can be so thoughtless. 

The third point he mentions is the "ocean conveyor" in the North Atlantic will shut down. Burton claims that according to information provided by the IPC, it is very unlikely that the ocean conveyor (known technically as the meridonal overturning circulation or themohaline circulation) will shut down in the future. The IPC states that while it is unlikely to shut down completely, it is likely to slow down by 2100. Gore argues that it is indeed possible to cease functioning if it were to receive a large influx of cold water, which he points to the possibility of Greenland ice sheet melting. In 2006, a team of researchers led by Kirsten Zickfeld of the University of Victoria, 8 people from the team believed that there was a 40 percent chance that the conveyor belt would collapse if the global average temperature rose by 4 degrees celsius above pre-industrial levels. 

Gore claims that there is a direct relationship between the historic rise in CO2 in the atmosphere and temperature. Burton claims that the graphs that Gore uses does not show a perfect fit. Some sources state that CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, yet this does not necessarily disprove that CO2 warms the atmosphere and that rising CO2 emission have caused warming since the 20th century.

Gore asserts that the receding snows of Kilimanjaro are due to global warming, since 21 percent of the 1912 ice covering the mountain was still around in 2003. Using high resolution satelite images, a 2006  study led by Nicolas Cullen of the Tropical Glaciology Group, it was concluded that the glaciers appear to be remnants of a past climate that was once able to sustain them. However, there is uncontested evidence that the world's mountain glaciers are melting fast.  

Gore asserts that Lake Chad's disappearance is due to global warming, but Burton credits this to factors such as population increase, overgrazing, and regional climate variability. But according to NASA, a 30 percent decrease took place in the lake between 1966 and 1975. irrigation counted for only 5 percent and drier conditions resulted for the rest of the decrease. Irrigation demands increased four fold between 1983 and 1994, accounting for 50 percent of the additional decrease in the size of the lake. This is really alarming that such changes would occur in such a short period of time. 

Gore claims that the impact of Hurricane Katrina was due to global warming. The debate continues, yet as hurricanes collect their power from the temp of the surface water, this gives a significant boost to the argument. Still heavily contested. It seems hard to pick a side and really feel confident when there are so many varying opinions.

Gore asserts that polar bears are drowning because of disappearing ice, but Burton stated that only four polar bears were found dead because of a storm. However, other scientists have suggested that weather conditions are becoming more severe in growing expanses of open water and making swimming more difficult. To me this seems like a reasonable claim. There is no doubt that ice is melting throughout the world, although the cause is contested. The lack of ice would cause polar bears to swim longer distances in comparison to before. Because the ice has melted so quickly, the polar bears have not had enough time to evolve to the changing conditions. 

Lastly, Gore claims that the coral reef bleaching events are due to global warming. Burton states that according to the IPCC report, if the temperature were to rise by 1-3 degrees celsius, there would be increased bleaching and widespread coral mortality. But he claims that the impacts of climate chance related stresses from other stresses such as over-fishing and polluting are difficult to discern. Unless drastic measures are taken, its likely that bleaching will occur. 

Overall, I agree with the reporter of this article, who says that Gore oversimplified particular topics and presented things in, well, not the best fashion. Despite this, I believe it was the best documentary on global warming that has been produced thus far in major circulation because it talks about all of the main issues in a comprehensive fashion. I think that the documentary itself is extremely important because it sparked debate and discussion about this entire issue. 

Hot, Flat, and Crowded

I was excited to see that Thomas Friedman had come out with another book related to the topics he had previously written about. I started to read his book "The World is Flat" when I was entering my senior year of high school. Unfortunately I was never able to finish the book, but I was able to conclude that Friedman has some worthwhile ideas contained in his literature. The article on the book talks about Friedan's proposal of an "ambitious national strategy" focused on the concept of "Geo-Greenism". This concept not only concentrates on what we need to do to save our planet, but also how we must make out own nation more healthy, innovative, and productive to spur both security and prosperity. He suggests that America must be the one to lead this initiative in the world. Although I have not read through the complete argument, I have to agree with the idea that America's leadership in alternative forms of energy could transform America's current reputation in the world. I think that through the innovation and leadership that such a task would require, the rest of the world would gain a tremendous amount of respect for our nation and no longer view us as a waning world power. Friedan reminds us that this "green revolution" that is so often talked about, never seems to be put in to action. This statement reminds me of something that seems to pop in my mind every day. Why do we talk so much about alternative energy and how we are experiencing a world crisis, yet nothing seems to get done? I know that it is often difficult to view progress in this position, but it seems as if this problem is being presented rather dramatically, yet no dramatic action occurs in response. I still don't understand why we don't have fuel-efficient vehicles, or why cleaner forms of energy are not being widely used. 

Leave Only Footprints: measuring and Managing Corporate Carbon Emissions

article contents:
-no standard tool for measuring carbon footprint quite yet
-3/4 of businesses attempting to measure carbon footprint, yet only half of them attempting to implement programs to reduce/offset emissons
-"myriad of methodologies" makes it difficult to get an exact measure, causes the entire process to become much more complicated
-Innovest tested Carbon Beta model which not only measures the carbon footprint, but looks at the carbon risk management architecture, the ability to recognize opportunities driven by climate problem, and the performance improvement trajectory over time.

The article mentions holding companies accountable for not only their own emissions, but their customers and suppliers emissions. McElroy refutes this idea in the article, suggesting that accountability should be held at the point of the particular emission, not "up or downstream from it". I think that this idea brings up an interesting point. If companies are held responsible for the emission of other people whom they are connected to, this may encourage them to take fast and drastic action to regulate their emissions, which ultimately yields enormous benefits for the environment. This would facilitate the fast-paced action needed to stop the environmental crisis in its tracks. Yet, as appealing as this concept may sound, it seems unlikely to come into affect. I feel as if companies should not be responsible for the emissions that their own company does not directly produce. Although they are playing in a role in the emissions of their suppliers and customers, the company itself is not producing these emissions. I think that maybe if some sort of compromise was put in to place, for example companies could be held responsible for their suppliers emissions but not their customers, than this may facilitate a reasonable amount of change. It would encourage companies to associate themselves with other environmentally conscious companies, and may ultimately drive those companies who neglect to follow up on modern energy policy out of business. Customers, however, should be personally responsible for their emissions in some way, rather than throwing the blame on the companies.

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

Various Articles from Class

article website: 
http://blackboard.gwu.edu:80/courses/1/55612_200803/db/_1418992_1/SciAmSept2005.pdf?bsession=31202156&bsession_str=session_id=31202156,user_id_pk1=232976,user_id_sos_id_pk2=1,one_time_token=More 

Profit with Less Carbon: (p.74)
Tawaiin-heating more eco-friendly
-long term investment
-will need to overcome conventional ideas in order to create more of an eco-friendly atmosphere
-suggests that it can appeal to the consumer...can offset the costs in other areas
-ex-Pentagon-green windows-energy efficient-saves a lot of money
-BUT, need to invest money to redesign energy system
-graph on page 82-proves that its possible to be free of oil energy
-"clean coal?" many argue that this is the way to go, but page 77 refutes, shows diagram of coal power plant, shows it to be inefficient, and only yields 9.5 percent of energy in the end
-article tries to argue that being eco-friendly is beneficial to companies for fiscal reason
-needs to be a combo of energy sources to become more eco-friendly and more efficient, can make a huge difference
-group feels that this seems like a good market to exploit, surprised that more companies haven't taken advantage of this. It makes you wonder...companies in some kind of conspiracy against us? Why have the miles per gallon standards not changed...it makes you wonder whether Exxon and Ford, for example, are not in some sort of an alliance.

Can Extreme Poverty be Eliminated? (p. 56)
-debunks myths about poverty
-attempts to convince readers that elimination of poverty is not naive, ex; America not doing as much as you would think. First world countries use only about 7 percent of GNP.
-average of 110 dollars per person needed to eliminate poverty
-poor people sometimes don't have a way to get out of poverty, born into it or just way too poor to ever climb up of the hole that their in. Many lack the education which would allow them to compete for jobs that would help their plight. 
-with poverty comes issues with sanitation, lack of clean water which breeds disease
-uses example of China-some of poverty alleviated with the "green revolution" which brought new techniques to irrigation
-this technique hasn't been used in Africa...

Kiva website: http://www.kiva.org/?gclid=CP7Em7j2qZYCFQOjFQodZwn6xw
-suggestion by James, ways to make a difference when it comes to poverty

-people not using globalization as mindset of one human race, 

I have really enjoyed the use of the articles thus far and plan to read further.

Monday, October 13, 2008

Notes from Plenary

notes from Nick on Thursday Plenary:

-if China continues to produce cars at the same rate, they would have about 1.1 billion cars by 2030.
-China not able to consume nearly as much per capita GDP as US
-Western economic model will not work in scenaria

Rampant consumption causes problems such as:
-Plan A-business as usual
-Plan B 3.0-"mobilizing to save civilization"
1. Stabilize population
2. remove poverty
3. renewal of broken environments
4. stabilize the climate

-artic oil reserves?
-much of the ice has melted, which creates more dark ocean. This scenario causes more heat to be absorbed by the water
-causing the acceleration of Greenland
-greenhouse gas emission are outpacing the very worst model...***

-Himalayan glaciers
-Chinese academy of science scientist measured Himalayan glaciers and concluded that the glaciers could disappear
-the national park will need to change its name by 2030
-must cut carbon emissions by 80 percent by 2020
-record high transportation rates with high gas prices
-1.5 million turbines for 3 million megawatts by 2020
-"will permeate the whole economy"
-according to Nick..."we need a command economy similar to the one during WorldWarII...feels as if the normal person will end up paying for the consequences...feels as if she assumed many things throughout the plenary"

Wednesday, October 8, 2008

Class Notes 10/8

Thermodynamics
-study of how large numbers of particles interact with their surroundings during energy transfer

What are systems?
-collection of entities (people places things) with
   --a boundary
   --an environment
   --input/output
   --feedback

Heat and Temperature

Heat: transfer of energy across the boundary of a system due to a temperature difference between the system and its surroundings. 

Temperature: average thermal energy of particles

Scales: Kelvin, celsius, fahrenheit

Heat capacity:  C=Q/change in temperature

specific heat: c=Q/(mxchange in T)

Q=c m change in T (depends on mass and c)

First Law of Thermodynamics
1. Energy is conserved in a closed system
2. Heat is energy

Heat is not conserved; work energy is not conserved. Total internal energy is conserved.
E(internal)=Heat+work

internal energy: kinetic energy of molecules, 

*Friction causes heat!
heat is work, work is heat

Heat Energy Transfer-Conduction
transfer of heat-exchange of average kinetic energy of atoms, molecules, and electrons.

Convection:energy transferred by the movement of a heated substance
natural convection; due to differences in density
-heated air expands, lowering the density
-pushed up by higher density air
ex; boil water
-forced convection:heated fluid moves due to fan or pump

Radiation: all objects radiate energy as electromagnetic waves
-produced by thermal vibrations of molecules


Friday, October 3, 2008

An Inconvenient Truth

Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth"
-Increase of carbon dioxide through mad-made processes
-greater amount of sunlight getting stuck in atmosphere due to greenhouse gases, causing the temperature of the earth to rise.
-dangerous consequences if carbon dioxide not regulated-melt polar ice caps, cause water level to rise
-possibility of section of Antarctica or Greenland melting
-if sea level rises, could potentially cover Manhattan, sections of Florida, the Netherlands, etc. 
-would cause "the textbooks and maps to be rewritten"
-extreme melting of ice causing polar bears to drown because they have to swim even further than they typically have to

PDF refuting Gore's claims:
"one sided, misleading, exaggerated, speculative, wrong"

Wednesday, October 1, 2008

Updates

This week's lab: Reviewed concepts of chemistry
*Remember!-first shell of molecule has 2 valance electrons
-figured out the structures of various elements 

Solar Constant Lab (#1):


Carbon Dioxide Lab (#2):


Problems in Class:
-Solar power 
-use of solar powers
-To power energy of New Hampshire, would have to cover entire region with solar panels with the current rate of proffencieny
-only one percent of U.S. land would be needed for solar panels. Although this sounds like a small area, in reality it is expansive. 
-Solar is only one answer. Realistically, we need to examine a combination of energy sources and use a combinations of these methods. 
-These methods account for less than 1% of our energy resources, which is inexcusable at this time of climate crisis. If we have the means to improve, we should expand upon it. Throughout the history of society, people have strived to make improvements. Yet our issues concerning the environment don't seem to improve. Its frustrating to see that although people talk about alternative methods of energy, no major changes are being carried out by society/government.