Well, frankly the Museum of Science trip was something of a flop. Veni, Vidi, wait vidi? We asked at least two museum employees where we could find the exhibit we were supposed to find and the answer we got in response both times was” I am not sure that exhibit still exists.” So we didn’t really see much of anything to do with energy conservation. There was one very small floor exhibit on the first floor in the mall like area, but it didn’t have a whole lot to say that we didn’t already know. Well, at least we got to see the dinosaur.

So let’s see, alternative topic then I suppose.

Let us talk about Steam.

Steam Power In the Past

Steam power has interested me for a long time, I am not sure why exactly. I think it started with my introduction to Heron of Alexandria who with his steam bowl invention almost invented the steam engine about two thousand years early. This would have meant an early, very early, industrial revolution. The possibility is astounding but, as stated in this clip from a wonderful documentary I highly recommend, Heron did not make the connections he needed even though he had the knowledge  to do so, perhaps because he just didn’t think of it or that slave labor made this a less profitable option.

Heron’s Steam engine  looks like this.

Wonderful isn’t it?   The fire heats the steam and the force of the steam causes the ball to rotate extremely quickly. I wonder if an industrial revolution had come early if  the environmental crisis we are in now, caused by the industrial revolution we did have, would be worse or , by this point better. After all even though the steam itself doesn’t cause pollution the coal to heat it does. Yes, wood can be used as fuel as well but then we may have faced extreme, (more so than it already is) deforestation.

The steam engine seems to have been forgotten until the 18th century when a few different models were invented some rather inefficient. Eventually they were improved and became the main source of power generation until steam was largely replaced by the internal combustion engine.  Gas may be bad for the environment but coal fired steam engines were notoriously worse. Though some trains are now using light oil and steam instead of diesel.  http://www.technologystudent.com/culture1/swiss1.htm

Do we use steam today? Yes we do,  but usually with cleaner more efficient heat sources such as, nuclear, geothermal and solar. Geothermal is perhaps my most favorite of the three.

Steam engines in the future

Steam power may have a greater place in the future.  BMW is experimenting with using  steam power to improve fuel efficiency in their automobiles. This “Turbosteamer” “uses wasted heat energy from an engine’s wasted exhaust gases to contribute power to the automobile.” The pressurized steam is brought to a steam engine built into the vehicle. There is also another smaller steam engine inside which produces extra energy. The overall increase in MPG’s was about 15%.

http://editorial.autos.msn.com/article.aspx?cp-documentid=434462

This sort of technology, using the heat from an engine to warm steam and run another engine, is being utilized outside of the automobile industry as well and be marketed as a “green engine”. This website presents a small version of what is, or will be inside the”Turbosteamer”  BMWs.

Green Steam Energy

You can watch the engine works here.

It still requires the heat that is generated by a vehicle being run on fossil fuel to work though, or at least is in these instances, but could be and would be a good supplement, to engines running off non fossil fuels as well.

Last Friday Tom Vales came to our class and did a presentation on electricity. It was really very interesting. He first showed us several small energy conversion devices.

The first device was a thermoelectric device made of copper wire and bismuth. It ran by having one wire in hot water and the other in cold water.

The next and my favorite, was the Stirling engine which was invented in 1816 by Richard Stirling. It is a heat engine and Vales small version was running off warm water in a cup. Mr. Vales said that it was so sensitive that the water barely has to be warmer than the surrounding temperature( about a 4 degree Celsius differential). He said that it had been invented to replace the steam engine but this didn’t really work out because on a larger scale the engine can be dangerous because of …well its tendency to explode. I like this technology anyway because it is 80% or more efficient. It is employed submarines because it is very quiet and small generators run by propane. The technology hasn’t changed since it was invented.

Mr. Vales Stirling engine looked like this.

Hey cool, a fancy Steampunk version

This is a schematic of how a Stirling engine works.

It runs off hot and cold currents alone(moving hot air back and forth),  how cool(and warm) is that?

Next he showed us a simple Barbeque lighter. He said that a quartz crystal and mechanical stress are enough to generate a high voltage. He called this the Piezoelectric effect.This is a charge that naturally accumulates in certain solid materials.

After this he showed the Mendocino motor. He said it was made up of magnets, balsa wood, and four solar cells tied to a winding. A current is put through the winding which reacts with the magnetic fields.

Mr. Vales said that the device can reach 1,500 RPM in full sun but is very fragile because the touching it while running would disrupt the delicate balance between gravity and the magnetic fields and it is more of a teaching tool than anything else.

Vales spent the rest of the presentation talking about Nikola Tesla and showing us his home-made Tesla coil which was a bunch of copper wire wrapped around an upside down plastic bucket. He told us that Tesla’s dream was the wireless transmission of energy and that this dream may have been achievable back in his time but not in ours. Vales made us all very nervous by holding a variety of bulbs up to his Tesla coil, on the top of which was a spark, and causing them to light up with energy. He said that he was safe from being electrocuted and that he only felt his arm getting warm,  but the electricity being generated was still dangerous. He said that he was experiencing the skin effect, which means the current travels over the outside of the conductor not through it.   It was impressive when the xenon filled bulb he held up lit up “remotely”. He also put a piece of  magnet wire (copper wire covered in lacquer) on top of the coil and the current running through it made it spin around.

I think one of the neatest things I learned about was St. Elmo’s fire. St. Elmo’s fire is stated in Wikipedia as “a weather phenomenon in which luminous plasma is created by a coronal discharge from a grounded object in an electric field in the atmosphere (such as those generated by thunderstorms created by a volcanic eruption)” . Mr. Vales said it shows up on the masts of ships or wings of planes and shows up as a purple flame.

I would like to thank Mr. Vale for finding the time to come show our class some very interesting  energy conversion devices and for risking getting himself electrocuted to show us some very neat tricks with electricity.

Should the  Nuclear power plant at Indian Point NY be shut down? That seems to be the question being asked  by some NY residents lately. Both sides argue points both for, and against, the shut down of the plant. Following the Daiichi Power Plant incident more people have begun to question the safety of our own Nuclear power plants.

Brief background

The Indian Point Nuclear plant is located 38 miles outside of New York City on the shore of the Hudson river. It has been running since about 1974.  According to Wikipedia,

“The plant generates over 2,000 megawatts of electrical power, comprising as much as 30 percent of the electricity used in New York City and Westchester County. ”    This is a lot of power.  If it was shut down suddenly without a ready replacement New York may experience some strain upon its grid especially in the summer months when more people are running their air conditioners.

However,  in 2007 the power plant got in trouble when a transformer explosion caused a small fire and they were caught storing too many dangerous chemicals. Although the fire was not considered very dangerous and the plant was fined for its storage infraction,it is no surprise that these incidents (combined with the Daiichi disaster) put up a red flag for many people especially once they found out that their may be plans to license the plant to run for 20 years beyond its original allotted time-frame.

“The penalty is a slap on the wrist in the context of a higher-stakes struggle between the state agency and Entergy over whether the two Indian Point reactors should continue to operate beyond 2014 and 2016, when their initial 40-year operating licenses are scheduled to expire. The reactors are licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which is moving toward granting a 20-year extension for each reactor, but Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo wants them shut down when their licenses expire.”

(http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/27/1-2-million-fine-for-indian-point-fire/)

Those Who are For the Plant.

When one does a “Google” search of the plant the top result after its Wikipedia is a site specifically dedicated to advocating for the continuation of the Power Plant’s role in supplying energy to New York.  It  makes itself clear by name alone, safe, secure and  vital make up its web dress.

http://www.safesecurevital.com/

The website  states that “Indian Point safely and reliably provides 25 percent of downstate New York’s power, with virtually no greenhouse gas emissions, at far lower costs than other power plants. Its continued operation is a vital component of the region’s economic and environmental future.”

Those in favor of keeping the plant running keep citing environmental friendliness but don’t propose a solution to long term waste management. They also all seem to have  something to gain financially by keeping it open.

And Against It.

On the other hand those who want to shut down the plant are make equal use of the internet expressing their concerns and the following video shows protestors who are against Indian Point.

The first speaker says that they are ant fraking and anti nuclear, my question is then, what are you going to use for energy?   He expresses fear that a natural disaster could cause the power plant to melt down. This may be acceptable if it was because he was concerned about the age of the plant but it seems he just doesn’t like Nuclear power as a general rule.

The second speaker, Chris Williams, Professor of physics at Pace university  is more likeable and seems to want to explore other alternative energy sources such as wind geothermal, tidal and solar. He cites Germany as an example of a large economically well off country that does not use nuclear power.  I agree that these alternative sources would be great but are they feasible yet?

These activists have their own website as well.  http://shutdownindianpointnow.org/    They make many good points in favor of shutting down the plant. Here are 4 of them.

So what are the pros of shutting down the plant?

It would settle a lot of fears

Less nuclear waste generation.

It may force people to implement even better safer cleaner power sources.

Cons to shutting down the plant?

The loss of a clean and safe(maybe???) energy source

Loss of about 1,000 jobs

Conclusion

When first writing this article I thought that I would agree with those who wanted to keep the plant open because nuclear energy is great, especially compared to coal and gas. However, I think the protestors have swayed me. Now I see that the plant is old and in a poor location and though it may not be as dangerous as they say, and though it is better than coal and gas it still posses a potential threat. I can see New York  leading the way into even better, cleaner more renewable energy sources. If Nuclear is better than coal, then solar, wind and geothermal are even greater by far. I think maybe this is idealistic and perhaps unrealistic in the short term but if enough people decide they want to make a change for the better, then I believe it could happen.

I don’t know why some people don’t want to believe in global warming. It  reminds me of Stephen King’s novella “The Mist”. A group of people are faced with a disaster and one man, Mr. Norton and his followers, the “flat-earthers”,  are  told there are monsters in the mist and even after being shown evidence,  they refuse to believe in any danger, either out of sheer stubbornness,  stupidity or fear. This leads them to a horrible demise.  Though it may be a dramatic example, it is essentially the same. People are being told that we may be facing a potential crisis, there are numbers to back this up, but even if there wasn’t proof , why not be safe rather than sorry?  Why on earth would a bunch of scientists be pulling everyone’s legs?  Or do they just believe that these scientists are just a bunch of monkeys in lab coats?  Ah hah, maybe it is the worlds greatest conspiracy! The environmental scientists are actually funneling all their funding into developing eternal kittens, bunnies chinchillas and puppies. Guys they never age.

Adorable,  but this seems  more appropriate and far likely more accurate.

Global warming deniers attribute the warming to natural climate change patterns. These patterns can not be ignored and are absolutely something to take into account. However, it is simply ignorant to believe that our rapid growth and industrialization in the past 200 or so years isn’t having an effect on our atmosphere. The damage we can do has already been illustrated by the giant hole we made in the ozone.  Unless they want to claim that never happened too? The data for global warming is pretty clear.

Wikipedia enlightens us as to why denial even takes place under  the entry “Climate Change denial”

“Climate change denial is a set of organized attempts to downplay, deny or dismiss the scientific consensus on the extent of global warming, its significance, and its connection to human behavior, especially for commercial or ideological reasons.^[1][2] Typically, these attempts take the rhetorical form of legitimate scientific debate, while not adhering to the actual principles of that debate.^[3] Climate change denial has been associated with the energy lobby, industry advocates and free market think tanks, often in the United States.^{[4][5][6][7][8]} Some commentators describe climate change denial as a particular form of denialism.^”

Commercial you say? Of course, it is always about money isn’t it?  I don’t know why that didn’t occur  to me sooner. Perhaps because of how petty and dangerous this reasoning is.

Who exactly are these “flat-earthers”, these global warming deniers?

Huffington Post lists some of the most prominent in a picture slideshow with a brief description of each. This is who they are and what they say :

Glenn Beck- “The earth and the environment are the progressive replacement for God … now because of our bad SUVs, according to Al Gore, the earth has a temperature. Uh oh. Unless you woke up yesterday, or today, where the temperature in the greater New York area was I believe right around 48 degrees, here in New York in late summer. There have been maybe, I don’t know, what a week of typical summer days in New York this year. Period.”

Sarah Palin  –“A changing environment will affect Alaska more than any other state, because of our location. I’m not one though who would attribute it to being man-made.” August 2008

Steve Doocy, FOX News Anchor- “Despite it being bitterly cold outside in the northern plains, we hear a lot about global warming. Is there another side to this story? Many scientists would say yes, but most media outlets — the mainstream media — only cover Al Gore’s ‘Earth has a fever’ perspective. This is the worst winter in some parts of America and around the world and perhaps we should be worried now about global cooling.” March 2008

Michael Steele, Republican National Committee Chairman- “We are cooling. We are not warming. The warming you see out there, the supposed warming, and I use my finger quotation marks here, is part of the cooling process.” March 20, 2009

George Will, Washington Post columnist- “George Will has repeatedly written articles for The Washington Post using misleading scientific data to suggest climate change does not exist. Despite numerous experts pointing out to Will that his columns are replete with “inaccuracies and overstatements”, Will continues to stick his guns.”

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Oklah.) (And His Truth Squad)- “[A]ll of the recent science…it confirms that I was right on this thing. This thing is a hoax.”

Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer, (R-Missouri)- “My goal is to deliver some of our people’s hard-earned money back into their pocketbooks instead of spending it on international junk science.” July 8, 2009

David Bellamy, British TV presenter, environmentalist- “People such as former American Vice-President Al Gore say that millions of us will die because of global warming – which I think is a pretty stupid thing to say if you’ve got no proof. And my opinion is that there is absolutely no proof that carbon dioxide is anything to do with any impending catastrophe. The ­science has, quite simply, gone awry. In fact, it’s not even science any more, it’s anti-science.” November 5, 2008

U.S. Chamber of Commerce- “Humans have become less susceptible to the effects of heat due to a combination of adaptations, particularly air conditioning. The availability of air conditioning is expected to continue to increase. Overall, there is strong evidence that populations can acclimatize to warmer climates via a range of behavioral, physiological, and technological adaptations.” “Detailed Review of EPA’s Health and Welfare Scientific Evidence,” submitted to EPA on June 23, 2009

Fred Barnes, Weekly Standard co-founder- “So-called global warming… which isn’t happening.”

John Coleman, founder of The Weather Channel- “I’m only concerned about the incredible frenzy and hype for something that’s a total myth.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/22/most-dangerous-global-war_n_330614.html?slidenumber=14#slide_image

I don’t even know how to react to some of these statements. I think my head is going to explode.

Some celebrity global warming deniers may be more recognizable to you. They include (according to http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/climate-weather/photos/7-surprising-global-warming-deniers/donald-trump)

Donald Trump, Ted Nugent, David Bellamy and Michael Crichton.

Why do people deny Global warming? In addition to the more sociological reasons mentioned earlier, I believe there are many factors including, but limited to, fear, politics, money, religious beliefs, personal agendas, and ignorance. I could go ask one but I have a feeling any answer I get isn’t going to sound very rational.

Another sad Polar Bear.

Because of all of my time living under a rock I had never heard of the Solyndra scandal so this topic required some research.

As it turns out Solyndra, a manufacturer of solar panels, was formed in 2005 and is known now for the scandal that occurred after it received government subsidies and went bankrupt anyway, laying off many workers in the process.

The following timeline found on The Washington Post website shows a clear progression of events.

2005

Solyndra is formed.

Dec. 2006

Solyndra applies for government-guaranteed loan under Bush administration.

Feb. 2009

Solyndra CEO suggests energy secretary help showcase company.

March 2009

Solyndra wins conditional loan under DOE program.

July 2009

DOE staffer criticizes Chu for implying Solyndra has already won loan.

Aug. 2009

White House aide pushes OMB for final decision on Solyndra loan.

Sept. 2009

OMB approves loan; Biden and Chu appear at groundbreaking three days later.

March 2010

Auditors raise concerns about whether Solyndra can continue operating.

March 24

Obama donor warns White House about president visiting Solyndra.

March 26

Obama visits Solyndra, touts it as model of clean tech and job creation.

Dec. 2010

Solyndra executives learn that the company is out of cash.

Jan. 2011

OMB staffers warn Solyndra rescue with public money is politically “risky”.

Jan. 2011

Solyndra execs confide to administration that they are on brink of liquidation.

Feb. 2011

DOE helps Solyndra with refinancing; investors put in an additional $75M.

Aug. 31, 2011

Solyndra shuts down, lays off most workers.

Solyndra claimed that their solar panels were unique in design;”The panels were made of racks of cylindrical tubes (also called tubular solar panels), as opposed to traditional flat panels. Solyndra rolled its copper-indium-gallium-diselenide (CIGS) thin films into a cylindrical shape and placed 40 of them in each 1-meter-by-2-meter panel. The cylindrical solar panels can absorb energy from any direction (direct, indirect, and reflected light)  (Wikipedia)  Sounds pretty cool right? They look cool too!

The solar panels were also said to have other positive qualities including  the need for less “anchorage” than average solar panels because they allowed the wind to blow through them thereby causing less resistance.They also claimed that the solar panels could generate more electricity than other solar panels  and up to 20% more when placed on white rooftops instead of black. This is advantageous environmentally  in two ways as , not only if Solyndra’s claims were true  would this produce more environmentally friendly energy but white rooftops act as glaciers, cooling the planet.  However, now this fact is being debated,  ( http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2011/10/20/white-roofs-may-actually-add-to-global-warming/ ) and some studies suggest white roofing may increase overall global warming.

The Solar Panels themselves sound pretty awesome though and if the company hadn’t gone bankrupt this technology could have been a great help towards furthering renewable energy.  So how exactly did this all turn into a “scandal” ? Was Solyndra  having an affair with Hydro behind solar energy’s back?

————————————————————————————————————————

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=wGBc7ROxKi4

————————————————————————————————————————–

This video states that the loan guaranteed to Solyndra under the Bush administration was pushed through hurriedly by the Obama administration because one of Obama’s major campaign backers was also an investor in Solyndra . (Really guys, well lets Bring up Bush’s oil investments shall we? )

Anyway, it also states that Solyndra was granted lower interest rates. the company went bankrupt and underwent FBI investigation.  It makes sure that we know that 1,100 employees were laid off and taxpayers may lose half a billion dollars.   All this may be true but  this video is also clearly Republican propaganda.

————————————————————————————————————————

The flip side of the coin is well expressed by Susan Kramer in her article here, http://www.greenprophet.com/2011/09/despite-solyndra-bankruptcy-solar-grew-69-from-obama-policy/

She says that

“The US Republican party has seized on the half billion dollar bankruptcy of Solyndra to prove that green jobs are some sort of scam, and green power doesn’t work. They’ve seized on one bankruptcy to prove that all clean tech companies are doomed to failure, and government shouldn’t invest in them. But Californa’s Solyndra was just one innovative clean tech investment among $90 billion worth of clean tech investments by the Department of Energy under the Obama administration’s Recovery Act. 

The other 99% are doing fine. And the resulting solar job growth, at 69%, is the one bright spark in the dismal US economy, as we’ve covered here. ( BrightSource Solar Project to Make More Energy than Fossil Fuel Plants) ”

She goes on to list some specific stats to argue this point.

• The solar industry now employs more than 100,000 Americans, more than twice as many as in 2009. They work at more than 5,000 companies, the vast majority being small businesses, in all 50 states.
• The U.S. solar industry grew by 69% in the past year, making it one of the fastest growing sectors in the U.S. economy.
• Since the beginning of 2010, the price of solar panels has dropped by 30%, and costs continue to fall making solar an even more viable choice for residential and business customers.
• The U.S. was a net exporter of solar products in 2010 by $2 billion. We were even a net exporter to China.
• Solar power in the U.S. now exceeds 3,100 megawatts (MW), enough to power more than 630,000 homes.
• Continued industry growth enhances our energy security and diversifies our domestic energy portfolio.

This is the proof in the pudding as they say. Solyndra was just one company funded by the Obama administration and one failure is hardly enough to claim that these clean energy subsidies are a bad idea. I believe that in the long run, someday when the clouds part, this will become much clearer for many than it is today.

 

“

 

Last Friday, 2/17/12, my we discussed solar energy in class. We learned how solar cells function. The sunlight causes the two layers of n- type silicon (negatively charged) and p-type silicon (positive type) to react and cause the electrons between them to flow in a circuit and create electrical energy. However the energy is DC and needs to be converted to AC to be used for most household appliances.

For our lab we connected a small solar cell to some wires (voltage probe) which connected to our NXT adapter, which we plugged into the computer.

Our first trial we ran the lab-view program with no light sources directed at the solar cell. In fact we put it face down so hopefully, no light got in.

Next we turned on the light source and let the program measure how much energy(voltages) the solar cell created at 5 different distances from the light source  This was done by moving the cell  30, 20, 10, and 5cm closer to the source.

Our hypothesis that the energy output would be highest closest to the light source and decrease as the light intensity decreased was supported by the results data collected by Excel.

We then moved on to filter the light source through different color film strips all at the fixed distance of 5 cm. The filters are a way to separate the light into different wavelengths. So which wavelength has the most power?

The order of our colored strips were: light pink, pink/red, yellow, orange and blue.

As you can see in the chart blue light generated the least voltages while “hot pink” generated the most.

Now excuse me if  I am wrong, I am partially colorblind and I am having trouble finding it on the internet but as far as I can tell and it is my best guess,  pink falls somewhere near violet which, in the light spectrum is on the farthest  end of the radiation generating invisible wave spectrum, which create higher amounts of energy.If this is the case then it makes sense that pink would generate more power. However, looking at the light spectrum blue is next to violet and in the chart blue is generating the least voltages.

So clearly my theory is wrong or I am reading the chart wrong. Either way I am not sure what other conclusion to draw from the collected data, aside from the fact that you get more voltages from the cell the closer it is to a light source.

On 2/12/12 my group-mate and I did the generator lab.

The purpose of this experiment was to see how much energy(voltages) was generated  based on the number of times the magnet passed through the spiral within the flashlight, or shaken back and forth.  The generator works based on Faraday’s law .

“Faraday’s law states that changing magnetic fluxes through coiled wires generates electricity. The greater the change in magnetic flux, the greater are the currents and voltages. ” This was discovered by Faraday in 1831.

Basically the force created by the opposite charges of the magnets can be harnessed to create energy. This is why shaking the flashlight back and forth, causing the magnet inside to pass back and forth through the coil inside causes it to create electricity.

This image resembles the guts of our hand held generators and the movement of the magnet through the coil.

Hey, Faraday is the same guy who discovered discovered the concept of the Faraday cage. Essentially he discovered and proved that an electrical charge stays on the outside of an conductor and does not affect anything on the inside. Which is why anyone standing inside of the Faraday cage in the museum of science will not get electrocuted even though the cage is being blasted with electricity.  Pretty awesome!

Back to the experiment.

The experiment, like our others, involved hooking our robot, or rather the core of our robot, minus the wheels etc up to the computer and then another set of wires connected the robot to the flashlight. The robot senses and gathers data from the flashlight and sends it to the computer.

We expected that the more times we shook the generator within the allotted 30 second intervals the more power we would generate and this proved just about true.

The following chart (which I am having trouble getting to work in this post) shows the numbers of shakes to the lest and the sum of squares of voltages generated by said shakes. The increase seems somewhat consistent except for the leap between 61 shakes equaling about 28 voltages to 70 equaling a much larger 85 voltages.

We also plotted these figures out on a graph which shows the upward trend more clearly. In conclusion, the amount of shakes does affect the amount of power generated by the magnetic field and all it took was the exchange of our own energy.

Well, I can tell you right now it has nothing to do with the awkward curse word used in the Sci-Fi series Battlestar Galactica and not just because of the different spelling.

Instead it looks something more like this, impressive.

Hydrofracking is described by Wikipedia as ,

“the propagation of fractures in a rock layer caused by the presence of a pressurized fluid. Hydraulic fractures form naturally, as in the case of veins or dikes, and is one means by which gas and petroleum from source rocks may migrate to reservoir rocks. Energy companies may attempt to accelerate this process in order to release petroleum, natural gas, coal seam gas, or other substances for extraction, where the technique is often called fracking or hydrofracking”

Below are images that further illustrate the aforementioned process.

Well, that doesn’t seem so bad right? If  this occurs naturally than it only seems smart to copy nature’s technique to retrieve badly needed resources? I can understand why this seems especially attractive to those who want to see us reduce our reliance on foreign oil as we could replace much o it with natural gas. Natural gas also much cleaner than oil or coal and gives off less emissions. In this video  founder and chairman of BP capital , T. Boone Pickens talks about our lack of an energy plan and his experience with hydrofracking which he endorses as being a safe and effective way to extract natural gas.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-january-27-2011/t–boone-pickens

Despite T. Boone Pickens’ assurances  hydrofracking  seems to be a controversial method. A Google image or video search will yield a plethora of pictures  of protestors, satirical cartoons and videos depicting unhappy citizens voicing their opinions on the dangers of hydrofracking.

Why are people so unhappy and wary of this mining process?

This article and video discuss a temporary hydrofracking ban in the new York city of Binghamton. In this interview the mayor expresses his reservations about  the impact that hydrofracking could have on a community.

http://www.capitaltonight.com/2011/12/binghamton-mayor-defends-hydrofracking-moratorium/#

Mayor Ryan brings up some legitimate reason for wanting to further look into hydrofracking. Not only does he cite socioeconomic and traffic reasons (hydrofracking requires a fleet of trucks to cart the required water and sand in and the waste products and gas out)  but also mentions the environmental concerns. This is a good point as hydrofracking has the potential for polluting the water supply as it did in Dimmock Pennsylvania. “In Dimmock Pennsylvania, the epicenter of the national hydrofracking debate, nearly 1400 residents have contaminated water. Many blame a drilling company called Cabot oil and gas.” I can see this as being entirely possible after looking at the following diagram.

The well goes right down through some fresh water aquifers and any errors in detonating the charges to cause the fractures could cause these aquifers to become contaminated. Not only this but some methods such as the one being debated in new York is called high-volume hydraulic fracturing, uses chemicals. “In this method, millions of gallons of initially clean water per well are intentionally contaminated with the addition of a wide range and large volume of very toxic chemical additives.  This technique combines “water with a friction-reducing chemical additive which allows the water to be pumped faster into the formation.” (http://wellwatch.wordpress.com/what-is-hydrofracturing/)

Once the contaminated water comes back up out of the ground it has to be trucked away to a plant and treated. Hydrofracking doesn’t seem worth it to me if there are any better ways.  It seems like a lot of work and appears to be a danger to the environment, but I would also like to see us have access to cleaner fuels and climate our reliance on foreign oil. So the question then is, is it worth the risk? I don’t know, I will leave that to the experts  but I feel that if an area is to be fracked it should be done with every possible precaution and if the risks stop outweighing the benefits the method should be scrapped ASAP.

On Friday February 3rd my partner and I did an energy experiment  involving a fixed pulley system, a set of weights, a ruler, and a Lego Mindstorm motor.

I admit I had a hard time with this experiment, especially the mathematical aspect and therefor only have an elementary grasp of the concept.  I know that a pulley is a simple tool and makes lifting things easier by reversing force.

Our instructions stated that “Setting the power level of the motor will set the torque on the motor wheel which will result in a particular force used to lift the masses.  The higher the power level, the greater the force.”  We were then asked to answer the following questions.

1.      Explore Newton’s 2^nd Law i.e.  by

1. Keeping the power level fixed and changing the mass.  Does the acceleration vary with mass?

Yes, the lighter the mass the faster the acceleration and vice-versa.

1. Keep the mass fixed and change the power level.  Does the acceleration vary with power level?

We then used Excell to analyze and graph our measurements.

I have never owned my own car due to my eyesight and likely never will, but this does not make me exempt from having to worry about what fossil fuel run vehicles are doing to this planet, our planet. As a fan of science fiction I like to imagine someday we will be able to explore and live beyond our solar system, but lets face it , this is highly unlikely. If it ever does happen it will not be for a very, very, very, long time. So here’s the deal, we need to take care of the only livable planet we have. When transportation takes up a whole 28% of greenhouse gas emissions, and of this, 34% is passenger cars and 28% is light duty trucks, just changing the efficiency of these two transportation methods would make a huge impact on reducing greenhouse emissions. I have to wonder if we shouldn’t be putting in a little more effort to bring this number down , way down.

Clearly we should all ride bicycles but that just isn’t going to happen and I admit I much prefer going for a nice long car ride.

Just today I saw a commercial for the Nissan Leaf, a not entirely unattractive electric car. This is not the commercial but it certainly makes it’s point when a polar bear makes a sad journey from it’s melting home and hugs the nice environment-friendly-Leaf-owner-businessman. .

http://youtu.be/BNeEVkhTutY

“Please, Mr. Polar bear , don’t eat me.”

Alright, now I have to ask , how exactly does this car work? Is it entirely electric? Is it a feasible option for most people ? It certainly cuts down on emissions.

Edmund’s says  “Introduced just last year, the Nissan Leaf was the first full-electric vehicle to be marketed to mainstream American buyers.” The base SV version costs $ 35,000, which appears to be a little over the “average” new car price of 2011 , but it still seems rather expensive to me. In fact the non- electric Nissan Versa is listed on   http://autos.yahoo.com/hatchbacks/all.html as only about 14,000. However, the difference appears to be the Leaf’s 92/106 Mpg versus the Versa’s 31/26 mpg.  I wonder just how you measure a mpg for an electric car?  We can not fail to take into account though  how much the Leaf will pay for itself over time in savings, as it is estimated to cost a small 3.5 US cent per mile to drive. Wikipedia states that  “the US Environmental Protection Agency official range[for the Leaf] is 117 kilometres (73 mi), with an energy consumption of 765 kilojoules per kilometre (34 kW·h/100 mi) and rated the Leaf’s combined fuel economy at 99 miles per gallon gasoline equivalent (2.4 L/100 km).^[8][9] The Leaf has a range of 175 km (109 mi) on the New European Driving Cycle.^{“/////////////////////n bbbbbbbbb.;l}

This is a huge increase in MPG’s! Why drive hybrids when we can drive fully electric vehicles that get us high MPG’s, is cheap to driv,e and gives off 0 emissions?

The downside here is the charging time. It takes about 8 hours to charge to full (that is, about 5 miles of range per hour). In our textbook  Smoke and Mirrors Burton Richter addresses this issue by mentioning a company that has suggested having stations with charged batteries ready for exchange( for a fee of course) (page 1337 kindle edition). Charging stations like this would certainly make these electric cars far more feasible for long distance travel.

Here is a review of the Nissan Leaf and another electric car, the Ion, by Top Gear.

I find that I tend to agree with Top Gear’s Jeremy Clarkson when he states that he does not think the Nissan Leaf, and the other electric vehicles of its generation are the cars of the future, but rather more of a gateway into the future. These electric cars are playing an important role in introducing a world changing( and bettering) technology to the masses.

I just hope the car of the future doesn’t end up looking like this.

But maybe it doesn’t matter if it saves some polar bears.

I find that I digressed and I did not answer the base question here, what is the automobile industry doing to increase Miles Per gallon? In the realm of  cars, aside from electric vehicles, like the Nissan Leaf and the Saturn Ion, there are (according to Wikipedia) plug-in hybrids, liquid nitrogen vehicles, hydrogen vehicles, compressed air vehicles, flywheel energy storage, solar powered cars and tribrids.

I haven’t even heard of a few of these and there are more than I expected. Some don’t seem very practical, like the solar powered vehicle. I think solar power makes a good supplemental source of energy in this case but certainly not a primary source. I like the idea of hydrogen fuel-cell powered vehicles though the writer of our textbook, Dr. Richter seems to hold his own reservations on the subject.

In a hydrogen fuel-cell powered vehicle the hydrogen that is injected into the car is combined with oxygen creating electricity. This means instead of having to plug your car in and charge it for hours you can just, in theory, fill up at a hydrogen station much like filling up on gas, except unlike gas you get 0 emissions. The Honda Clarity gets 68 MPG and looks just like any other four door sedan.

This is a great site to really get a good look at planet friendly vehicles if you want to find out more.

They list: Hybrid, Electric, Ethanol, Hydrogen, Natural Gas, plug-ins and biodiesel.

http://www.greencar.com/

When you do a search for cars of any make that match the criteria of 50+ MPG, 5 cars come up all of which are hybrids.I think this goes to show that hybrids are our best bet in the near future, especially as far as public acceptance goes. I don’t think the automobile industry or the public are going to decide that switching over from gasoline is important until a shortage or an environmental crisis makes it abundantly clear that we have to, which we do.