SCI184

Last week our class took a trip to MIT to visit their nuclear fusion center. During our tour we were able to speak with grad students who are working with nuclear fusion and specifically the C-MOD machine. In the lecture the student presenter told us that they strive to reach better energy confinement with the C-MOD machine. They are able to measure what the density and speed the is rotating at, as well as what the temperature of the plasma is. I thought it was interesting to learn that plasma is almost 40 times better than copper in terms of its conductor properties.

Our class also had the opportunity to write to our states congress person in support of MIT’s C-MOD. The C-Mod fusion project is at risk of being shut down because of proposed cuts by the Obama administration’s presidential budget for the fiscal year of 2013. By visiting this website http://kerry.senate.gov/press/release/?id=e58af17e-0fbc-4160-b867-76fbc9b694f7 you can find a link which will connect you to your appropriate senate man/woman, and you can support the preservation of the funds that keep C-MOD running.

As I am from New Hampshire, I was able to contact my Congressman Charles Bass in opposition of cutting the Alcator C-Mod experiment and others like it from the new domestic US fusion program proposal from the President’s 2013 budget for the DOE Office of Science Fusion Energy Sciences. Here is the response I received:

Although this response does not promise that the C-MOD will be  saved it keeps the people who represent us informed that we do value the research on the forefront of clean, renewable, energy that will propel our future.

For our team project we have created an experiment that demonstrates how an industrial fan can be used to generate electricity and power a wind turbine. I think that we were all able to come together and create an interesting project that our class will enjoy. Our class should walk away from our presentation understanding that wind turbines transform the kenetic energy of the wind into electrical energy/power.

The last two points people should take away from our project is the fact that energy is lost in that transformation. I think our experiment shows that wind turbines are a viable resource for alternative energy.

During our class trip to the Museum of Science we were able to walk around and view all the exhibits. The “Tails to Toepads” exhibit was one of the first we were able to observe. It was interesting to learn about

However, because our class is about sustainability I focused on the “Catching the Wind” exhibit. It was designed to portray the importance of renewable energy and a clean environment. One of the slogans at the exhibit was “powering our future” and “get energized”. This exhibit must have been a few years old because one of the informational clips said that in 2009, the MOS would be installing five different kinds of wind turbines on its roof. I thought it was interesting that it said the turbines would not only be producing energy for the building, but they would also be measuring the efficiencies of various machines and their impact on the MOS and the enviornment.

“Catching the Wind” also highlighted the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center so I decided to do a little research on this organization. I learned that the program was created by the Green Jobs act of 2008, and enforces the importance of clean energy while creating jobs and implementing economic growth within the commonwealth of Massachusetts. They believe that supporting clean, renewable energy is necesarry for our enviornment and the right thing to do for the economy of Massachusetts. One of the coolest part of the MassCEC website (http://www.masscec.com/) is the MEGAWATTS meter at the top of their homepage. Currently, Massachusetts has installed 97 mw of solar power and 48 mw of wind energy.

 The website is actually very intersting and quite informative if you want to learn anything about the windpower used in MA or about the jobs that such wind turbines provide throughout Massachusetts.

Contemporary Science and Innovation

Spring 2012

Wind Turbine Experiment

Name: __________________

Purpose: To demonstrate the principal that wind turbines can be used to generate and store energy in a sustainable way. With this experiment we are measuring the amount of energy that is created in Joules from different distances and at different lengths of time. With this we are able to determine the most efficient way to harness the power of one of the world’s most abundant resources: Wind. 

Materials: Large industrial fan, Lego Mindstorm Wind Turbine Set, Pen, Paper

 Experiment:

1)    Assemble the Lego Mindstorm Wind Turbine

2)    Turn on the industrial fan

3)    Place the Lego turbine in front of the fan so the turbine catches the wind and moves the blades

4)    At a constant distance, time how long the blades move and record the amount of Joules created. Repeat.

Time                                                                                                             Joules

5)    Place the Lego turbine in front of the fan so the turbine catches the wind and moves the blades

6)    For a constant amount of time, record the distance between the turbine and fan and record the amount of Joules created. Repeat at three different distances.

Time                                                                                                             Joules

7)    Describe the concepts presented here.

For our group experiment we will be using a wind turbine connected to a Lego mind-storm battery. Using a free standing fan we will power our wind turbine which will then power up our battery pack. After our battery pack is powered we will be able to run our turbine with the stored energy. We would also like build a car we can run off the stored energy in the battery. We will measure how much power can be produced at different distances during our presentation to the class.

Materials used: Ruler, pen, paper, Lego Mindstorm wind turbine set, and a large industrial sized fan.

Measurement of energy: Joules

Key purpose of our experiment: To demonstrate how wind power can be harnessed and stored to create energy in a sustainable way.

So what exactly is nuclear power anyways? Well, according to http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Debate:_Nuclear_energy nuclear power is any nuclear technology designed to extract usable energy from atomic nuclei via controlled nuclear reactions. Today, we can create nuclear energy by heating a fluid, which will be converted into mechanical work to produce electricity or propulsion.

Because the United States relies so heavily on fossil fuels, (about 80% of the U.S. energy production) it is high time we begin focusing on alternatives to an energy source that won’t be around forever. Yes, of course we have continued to explore renewable energy through wind, solar, and geothermal sources, however, the world energy demand has been projected to grow by 50% when we reach 2030. This means we will undergo an undeniable increase in needs of fossil fuels, but what happens when we run out? Moreover, what will happen to our enviornment, when we begin to exude more and more carbon into the atmosphere?

Nuclear power plants have continuously been the brunt of debate as some see nuclear power as a viable alternative to traditional carbon-producing energy sources while others see a disaster waiting to happen. Many skeptics fear the risk of major disaster that could potentially come with the nuclear power plants. Although the risk of catastrophic disaster is very low due to modern technology and effective safety measures, accidents can still happen. This means the more nuclear plants built, the higher chance there is for an accident to occur. So should we fear another Three Mile Island incident? No, in all actuality, Three Mile Island was a complete success as far a nuclear meltdowns go…. its concrete containment structure did exactly what it was designed to do: it prevented radiation from escaping into the environment. There was no death or injury to the employees of Three Mile Island or the residents in surrounding areas.

Indian Point nuclear power plant in Buchanan, New York, has been providing New York City (along with other areas of NY) with power for over 40 years. However, organizations like Riverkeeper, have been fighting for the shutdown of Indian Point saying that its accessibility to terrorism is among a laundry list of thing wrong with this nuclear plant. If you want to visit http://www.riverkeeper.org/campaigns/stop-polluters/indian-point/?gclid=CLym-p381K4CFaIQNAoddHcfcg, they have links containing fact sheets, recently implemented plans/policies, and what you can do to aid the shutdown of Indian Point.

Cons:

-20 million people live within 50 miles of Indian Point, therefore, in the event of such catastrophic disaster, the emergency evacuation plan must be flawlessly executed.

-Indian Point kills over a billion fish, eggs, and fish larva annually so in actuality it is harmful to the environment ecologically.

-I think it is also a large problem that NYC will have to face in terms of replacing the electricity they get from Indian Point. It has to be expensive and I am sure it would cause more frequent power outages in the City until a solution to replace all the lost energy is found.

Pros:

-The reactors provide 13% of NYC’s power, imagine how much coal that would take?!

-There will be a public hearing in the summer of 2012 to  discuss the issue of re-licensing Indian Point.

-This nuclear plant fosters production of energy without the harmful emission of carbon.

So the debate remains: are nuclear power plants worth investing in to reduce our carbon footprint or are they just too much of a danger to consider a possibility? Should we invest money into other renewable resources like water, wind, and solar energy even though it is more economical and takes up less space to build a nuclear power plant? I guess we will see which way NY sways in the fight for and against Indian Point.

We have all heard of global warming and think it’s a safe bet to make that we have all been forced to watch Al Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ in a high school biology class right? Well, what do we think? Is global warming hoax? Is our abnormally warm Boston winter simply a fluctuation in weather patterns? I tend to think that global warming has some validity based on current climate changes, growing CO2 emissions, etc. However, it is not often that we hear about the people who deny global warming. In the following blog, I will explore these often times unheard opinions.

“Our leaders who art in Copenhagen
Alarmists be thy name
Thy Climate Change Come
Cap And Trade Will Be Done
As We Give A Pass To Developing Countries
Give Us This Day Our Carbon Offsets
And Forgive Us Our Carbon Footprint
As We Forgive Those Who Hacked Our Emails
And Lead Us Not Unto Global Warming
But Deliver Us From CO2
For Thine Is The Kyoto Protocol
And The Power To Control Our
Economy For Ever…Al Gore”

… I found that little gem this guy’s blog and thought it was a pretty funny. His name is Troy Aardvark and he refers to himself as a “climate realist”. I don’t necessarily think all his views are accurate, but he sure does, and they are somewhat entertaining.

Skeptics think Gore’s documentary (which was awarded with an Oscar for best documentary in 2007, and later shared a Nobel prize with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) accuse the IPCC of not listening to others and their research results on global warming. According to http://www.usaref.org/GlobalWarming.htm, as of 1/15/2010, NOAA (National Oceanic & Atmospheric Association) admitted that scientists practicing under their umbrella were exposed by e-mail of manipulating, omitting, and favoring data to help Gore’s crusade for Global warming.

Global warming is both a political and public debate, and globally one of the most argued topics around the world. Skeptics tend to believe that the weather models used to study “global warming’s” impact on the Earth are distorted and we should not be concerned by the recent rise in Earth’s temperature. Most skeptics dub the global warming hoax a mere shift in weather conditions that can be explained by volcanoes, changes in solar output, and variability (http://www.benefits-of-recycling.com/globalwarmingisnotreal.html). Their key point in terms of supporting these arguments is the fact that our Earth has observed warmer climate patterns throughout our history.

Like any argument you must be persuasive in order to win over public opinion and a reliable source is always a great start in changing opposition. Dr. S Fred Singer PhD is a respected and considered by global warming deniers as a credible scientist. He speaks on behalf of the American person, saying that the global warming scare in Washington and across the world is nothing more than a political power struggle for money and power. Singer says,  Let’s assume that I’m stupid and crazy? If fossil fuel combustion were a problem, there is a vast array of scientific mitigation measures that could be effective. There is also plenty of speculation about relatively simple, but global-scale, interventions that might impede warming. I would be very reluctant to assume responsibility for a project that might very well move the globe, more quickly than nature otherwise would, into the next Ice Age.” The following link will connect you to a Youtube video where Singer speaks about global warming or the lack of global warming as he believes: http://toryaardvark.com/2010/01/01/dr-s-fred-singer-a-voice-of-reason-on-climate-change/.

While global warming activists feel that temperature rises due to greenhouse gasses, the sun and the Earth’s reflectivity will give way to catastrophic extremes in weather if we do not fix the problem now, deniers believe that if there is a problem, it is the “science” behind global warming. Although this blog focused on the deniers, it is interesting to study the topic, compare ideas, and formulated your own views on global warming. Who’s side are you on?

So to sum up the guest speaker presentation, i think it was really informative and also cool to meet the guy that makes inventions that are hundreds of years old, which have the potential to create clean renewable energy. Only hitch is we still haven’t figured out exactly how to do this so that it is safe, efficient, reliable, etc.  The Lab Coordinator at Suffolk University, Thomas Vale, who also has a few side businesses building custom contract machines like the three pictured above. (From left to right: Stirling engine, Peltier device, and a Mendocino motor)

The Stirling engine was another contraption that our guest speaker brought into class. The Stirling engine was invented by Robert Stirling in 1816, and has the potential produce a much greater efficiency than a gasoline engine. According to howstuffworks.com, the engine runs off the motion of two pistons inside, and unlike gasoline, the gasses inside this engine don’t leave through an exhaust, thus, the machine is very quite. This article also said a Stirling engine can run off an external heat source so we could apply that concept to solar-voltaics, like in our lab and make a solar powered Stirling engine. A little real life application: Mr. Vales said in class, these engines are used today in generators.

Peltier devices, also known as thermoelectric coolers (http://www.peltier-info.com/), work by creating heat fluctuation between two different types of metal. The Peltier device that was made by Mr. Vales was powered by one up of cold water, and one cup of hot water.

The Mendocino motor consists of a free standing block with solar cell panels on the four sides. When the light hits the solar cells, the magnetically levitated motor is charged by the movement in magnetic fields. The magnetic charge and electric current turn the motor in a circular motion. As I was doing my research on the Mendocino motor, I came across a website where Thomas Vale actually sells kits to make your own Mendocino motor. The whole kit is $125.00. Here is the website if anyone is interested! http://stelmos-fire.com/mendocinomotor.html

Now, my personal favorite because A.) it is so cool looking and B.) how cool would it be if wireless technology were readily available to the public?! So here is a little background on Nicola Tesla: he was born in Croatia, later moving to the United States to work as an engineer. Tesla was a great inventor who is accredited with the invention of florescent lighting, the Tesla induction motor, the Tesla coil, wireless transition of power and also developed the alternating current electrical supply system. According to inventors.about.com, Tesla is also recognized for inventing the modern radio. The Tesla coil was invented in 1891, and is used in electronic equipment like radios and televisions to this day. According to our guest speaker Thomas Vales, Tesla had over 700 U.S. patents and his greatest contribution was developing the necessary alternating current for our electrical power grids.

Check out the video below it is of the Lightening Show at the Museum of Science in Boston where we will be going in a few weeks.

Museum of Science, Boston: Lightening Show, Finale Tesla van de Graaff

Photovoltaics is a method or way to generate constant electricity, this flow of constant electricity travels in one direction. This energy is used in photons, more commonly known as solar cells. The single current works similarly to the generator lab, but instead of varying polarity (as seen in the generator lab) the electrons move in a circular direction, rather than the alternating direction. The solar panels the key components used in photovoltaics solar systems and this system produces electricity. Therefore, we can harness the Earth’s natural sunlight and convert it into energy.

By using solar panels, you produce and consume clean electricity, both helping the environment and avoiding crazy fluctuations in electricity prices. Photovoltaics can also be built to any size, which is determined by the amount of electricity that is needed. According to the US Department of Energy, state of the art PV modules can be made in a variety of colors and styles, making them aesthetically pleasing, unlike wind turbines. However, there are some negative points about solar energy: they can be expensive to install and more research is needed to reduce costs.

For our experiment, we used the NXT adaptor and connect it to port 1. We also connected the solar panel to the NXT robot (red wire to red wire, black wire to black wire, to get a positive charge). The computer then recorded ten points of data that we collected during each experiment. We recorded data for no light, then used color strips (pink, blue and orange).

Here is what we found:

No Light Filter:

And the voltage results with color sheets our group used:

So, what did we find through our experiment? Naturally, no filter creates the highest voltage, while the darkest filter color (in our case blue) generated the lowest amount of voltage. The pink and orange filters produced a very similar voltage, i would assume that is because they were close as far as transparancy with the light.

The collapse of Solyndra, a California-based solar panel maker raises many questions about the company’s bankruptcy after receiving government based loans in the amount of $535 million from the Obama administration. One can’t help but ask did the government jump the gun and push loan guarantees for Solyndra with another agenda in mind? Well, one thing is for sure, like Joe Wilson of the New York Times said, “If Brian Harrison and W. G. Stover, the two Solyndra executives who took the fifth amendment at a Congressional hearing, ever spend a day in jail, I’ll stand on my head in Times Square.”

Now, there is evidence that the manner in which the Solyndra deal was so quickly implemented is suspect, but how can we tell who is at fault for the collapse of this company. Well, it depends on who you ask. Republicans are blaming the Obama administration, and democrats are saying the loan was initiated by the Bush administration. But is one party really at fault here or is it something else entirely? The Washingtonpost.com reports that the American Energy Innovation Council (AEIC) says there is reason to believe that the private market sector is under investing in new energy alternatives. AEIC argues that new energy development should be a more prominent national focus. The AEIC also found that on average, the US federal government spends  about $3 billion annually on new energy research. Seems like a decent investment right? Well compare that number to the health sector at $36.5 billion or defense research at $77 billion.

So what does the collapse of Solyndra have to do with the furture of renewable resources in our country? Nothing. It is still a great, almost necessary idea to foster the production and developement of clean energy, however, we need to find a way that works to produced this energy in an economical fashion. A report from FOX News said Solyndra was paying about $6 to make each solar panel, while they could sell them in a competitive market for about $3. That is a negative return on investment, obviously the company did not have a snowballs chance in hell to survive.

Eric Pooley is the vice president for Strategy and Communications at the Environmental Defense Fund, says that ideally, we wouldn’t need subsidises to build our next generation of clean energy technologies. However, we don’t live in a perfect world and we need public backing when our economy is in such a state of distress. Instead of leaving it up to our government to choose winners and losers, they should focus on improving and transforming our electricity grids. We can see how the innovation of the government’s role on the Internet infrastructure helped boost American corporations to a new level, so we need to find a way to mirror that model with innovations in clean, renewable energies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzoF_vqC5tU

Check out the Youtube clip above from the John Stewart show,  I thought it was really interesting, and pretty funny!