In place of last week’s class, a fair number of students gathered together to make the windy walk to the Museum of Science, with the intention of collecting information to help our respective group experiments. After entering the museum, Phil Sommer and myself sought out the energy sustainability portion of the museum and bee-lined for the small corner dedicated to solar energy. While most of the hands-on displays were intended to educate adolescents on how solar energy is collected, we were mainly drawn to one activity in
Fig. 1 (click to enlarge)
particular that was meant to resemble a house donned with solar panels; as the text in Fig. 1 explains, the angle of incoming sunlight greatly affects the amount of solar energy collected within the panels. The activity station’s instructions told us to place the magnetic, spatula-like photovoltaic panels on either Point A, Point B, or Point C of the “house” and measure the energy collected for the Sun angles in the Morning, Noon, and the Afternoon. In the bottom image, Phil records the outputted number revealing the energy collected from Point B at Noon. The outcome of our experiment with this activity proved that in order for a panel to collect the highest amount of solar energy, the photovoltaic panel must be place in coordination to the incoming angle of the Sun. Relating this to our group experiment, we should ensure that the reflective surface of our solar oven is positioned at an angle in relation to the Sun, thereby allowing the internal portion of the oven to absorb a higher level of solar energy. After finishing with this solar activity, we were disappointed to find that the Museum of Science did not offer more displays relevant to our experiment and solar energy in general. We continued to use our admission to peruse the other sections of the museum, finding ourselves in the way of many small children amid our search for anything relating to our solar oven experiment.
During last week’s class, the students were divided into teams to determine the groups for the course’s final project. I chose to join Phil Sommer’s group, as I have worked with him throughout the semester, and was similarly followed by our usual third member, Angela Bray.
Going into the first team meeting, none of us had any solidified ideas for our final project; interested to see what we could find on the Internet, we skimmed through the provided websites on the project description and also searched for our own. We came across one PDF file from the North Carolina Solar Center and, upon review of the document, decidedly found our experiment for the final project.
Solar Cooker from the North Carolina Solar Center
A solar cooker, or solar oven, requires few supplies for its building process, yet yields surprisingly efficient cooking results once solar energy is added to its construction. For the option we found from the North Carolina Solar Center, the experiment requires eight common materials: a cardboard box, foam for insulation, aluminum foil, plastic food wrap, sticks, tape, black paint, and string. Upon finishing its quick construction, the solar cooker will appear as demonstrated in Fig. 1. Concerned with the hour-long time for cooking alone, we sought a faster option for our experiment. What we found was an article written by Don Shepard for a fast-heating solar oven.
For this solar oven experiment, there are fewer necessary supplies, assumedly resulting in a simpler construction design. Shepard’s experiment calls for a pizza box, black paint, aluminum foil, plastic wrap, string, and a thumbtack. Notice the lack of foam insulation for heat entrapment. Shepard writes that for maximum heating speed for this experiment, the top of the pizza box (known as the flap in this case) can be adjusted to allow more solar energy to collect in the apparatus.
Our final decision for our team project is to compare and contrast the efficiency of the two solar oven options; while the first one requires a bit more time, it has a broader range of food options than Shepard’s experiment, who warns that heavier food items should not be used in his version of the solar cooker. However, Shepard’s experiment offers a faster cooking time than the hour-long procedure of the first, and requires fewer supplies and construction time. Our plan, as of now, is to experiment with Option A (North Carolina Solar Center) and Option B (Don Shepard) using pre-cooked bacon, and test the two versions in a given time period for how well they heat the bacon with the energy from the Sun. It should be noted that this was only our first team meeting, and specific details of our final project will be worked out in future meetings.
Sources:
North Carolina Solar Center. “Solar Activities for Students.” Solar Center Information. Sept. 2001. Web. 19 Mar. 2012.
Shepard, Don. “How to Make a Fast Heating Solar Oven.” eHow Food. 2009. Web. 19 Mar. 2012.
The nuclear power plant at Indian Point, located in Buchanan, NY.
The nuclear power plant located in Indian Point, NY, was closed for public and environmental safety reasons on Thursday, March 1, when toxic gases began to collect in the plant’s electricity transformer. This incident adds further controversy to the argument against the continuance of the power plant; the Indian Point location was shut down less than two months before for a total of eight days due to a leaking pump that was dispelling small amounts of radioactive water. Located merely 35 miles from Manhattan, the power plant generates over 2,000 megawatts of electricity to supply the majority of power to all of New York City and its nearby county of Westchester (The Huffington Post); however, with recent shutdowns and accidents (namely the 17-day power outage thanks to a malfunction within the plant), skeptics of the Indian Point power plant are concerned that the nuclear activity will result in public and environmental harm. Although it is a major supplier of efficient electricity for the nation’s largest and brightest city, its string of shutdowns have revealed that the federal government has allowed the plant’s owners, Entergy, to operate the location despite its failure to comply with “safety risks in the areas of fire, earthquake, and possible terrorist attacks” (Lydon). Attorney Paul Gallay has made the connection between the plant’s recent operation flaws and the consequences of a possible major accident at Indian Point; if the state of New York experiences a situation similar to the Fukushima Daiichi disaster in the event of an Indian Point malfunction, “the damages range from evacuating 5.6 million people, to 1.3 million possible cancer cases and evacuating everyone out to and including Manhattan” (Lydon). At this point in time, the biggest concern for the plant’s opposition (including New York governor Andrew Cuomo) is the possibility of an earthquake at the location of the Indian Point power plant; the estimated number on the Richter scale for the two fault lines near the nuclear plant has increased to 7.0, leaving a dim future for the plant that can only withstand a 5.0 magnitude in the event of such seismic activity (Lydon). Despite these negative predictions, the decision of whether or not to shut down the Indian Point power plant altogether is not easily reachable due to the extremely high energy outsource needed to power New York City, especially in the upcoming hot summer. If Entergy and the supporters of the Indian Point power plant, such as Mayor Bloomberg, expect to simmer down the opposition and keep the location operating, they must begin by adhering to strict safety standards in order to prevent shutdowns and eliminate any possibility of an accident or a meltdown. For an informative report from NBC News on the conflict associated with the Indian Point power plant, please visit this link.
Sources:
Associated Press. “Indian Point 2 Nuclear Reactor Back In Service.” The Huffington Post. 19 Jan. 2012. Web. 19 Mar. 2012.
Lydon, Patrick. “Is the Indian Point Nuclear Plant Unsafe?” The Energy Collective. 12 Mar. 2012. Web. 19 Mar. 2012.
New York, CBS. “Indian Point Nuke Plant Back In Service After Day Offline.” CBS.com. 1 Mar. 2012. Web. 19 Mar. 2012.
Segar, Mike. “The Indian Point nuclear power plant in Buchanan, New York, is seen from across the Hudson River, April 6, 2010.” Photo. Reuters. Web. 19 Mar. 2012.
Last week’s classroom time was replaced by an opportunity to visit the Plasma Science and Fusion Center located on MIT’s campus. Upon arrival, we were ushered into a conference room to receive a preview to the fusion center’s tour, as well as new facts concerning nuclear fusion and the MIT center itself. Our presentation leader began by reiterating the now-familiar yet unfortunate truth that the Earth’s reserves of fossil fuels will not last much longer, considering its high demand. In recent years, alternative fuel sources have been discovered and used for experimentation with differentiating results. As promising as these alternatives may seem, the perfect option is nuclear fusion as it “cuts out the middle man” in its energy production process. However, the completion of this process is far from simple; doing so involves harnessing the same energy as the Sun, requiring the use of the fourth state of matter, better known as plasma.
When energy is added to matter, the particles move rapidly and, depending on how much is applied, the matter can change forms – from solid to liquid, gas, and finally plasma. A new term learned from this presentation is the definition of an electron-volt (eV) and its definition as the electron’s kinetic energy during acceleration through an electric potential difference; according to the informative slide, an electron’s energy level at 1 eV is equivalent to 11,330 °C, or 20,400 °F (used for measurement only in Belize, Burma, Liberia, Palau, and the United States). In a plasma atom, the negative energies of the two electrons cause them to repel each other constantly, yet attract them to the nucleus. Examples of plasma can be spotted nearly anywhere in the universe as most visible matter in space, such as the Sun, is comprised of plasma. Here on Earth, plasma is used in televisions, lightbulbs, and even cell phones; most importantly, in terms of our presentation, plasma is used at MIT to conduct magnetic fusion.
As we had learned in a previous class, the act of fusion is caused when two isotopes of hydrogen, deuterium and tritium, come together to produce 17.6 MeV of energy. Magnetic fusion employs this process while confining the nuclei and electrons within a magnetic forcefield thanks to the Lorentz force. The donut-shape of the tokamak, or the vessel that contains this activity, closes the magnetic field lines with its shape of consistency, ensuring that the scorching plasma will not touch the sides of the machine.
The Alcator C-Mod tokamak located within the Plasma Science and Fusion Center at MIT, as presented to us by our informative guide.
Of all the locations using magnetic fusion, the Alcator C-Mod, of which we were given a tour following the conclusion of our presentation, contains the highest magnetic field and could produce the energy source needed to eliminate the dependency on fossil fuels; however, the dismal fact remains that the act of harnessing energy from nuclear fusion has yet to be done. This is mainly due to the lack of usable earthly material that will not melt under the extreme temperatures needed for nuclear fusion. Scientists around the world, including those employed in the development of the MIT Alcator C-Mod tokamak, are working towards the day when nuclear fusion will become a safe and reliable source of global energy. However, the future of the Plasma Science and Fusion Center, as well as the Alcator C-Mod, is in danger of being shut down by opposition within the federal government. To ensure that the scientists at MIT can continue their progress towards successful nuclear fusion, please visit this link to sign the supportive petition.
One of the primary issues involved in the upcoming presidential election is the controversy over the actual existence of global warming, never mind human involvement in climate change. Americans have come to identify a trend in the beliefs and disbeliefs within candidates concerning global warming as Republicans inherently deny its existence in our world today, while Democrats take the side of scientific research and advocate not only for its existence, but its severity as a reason for environmental and economic change.
The on-going Republican primaries have evidenced to Americans that one of the factors in determining the true conservatism of a candidate is their support of global warming denial. Front-runner Rick Santorum, whose overall views on global warming are evidenced in this video, took the time to scrutinize competitors Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney for their one-time support of cap-and-trade policies, which would limit carbon emissions, therefore buying in to the belief of climate change as well man’s involvement. Santorum argues that his Christian faith reasons for him to disbelieve the issue of global warming, stating that it is “an absolute travesty of scientific research that was motivated by those who, in my opinion, saw this as an opportunity to create a panic and a crisis for
Fig. 1 (source: Polyakov et al 2002, NASA)
government to be able to step in and even more greatly control your life” (quoted in Villarreal). So the belief of global warming is equivalent to Democratic fascism, Mr. Santorum? As Fig. 1 demonstrates, the rapid spike in CO2 levels and average arctic temperature are affected directly by humankind’s excessive use of emitting fuels such as gas, coal, and oil. The evidence proving the existence of global warming, much less man’s involvement in speeding the process, is difficult to deny, yet Republicans continue to voice their opposition.
During the 2010 mid-term elections within the United States Senate, 47 of the 48 Republicans voiced their denial of the climate change and their refusal to provide any action for the issue (Goldenberg). Senator John McCain, who marginally lost the presidential election to Barack
Arguing Republican disbelief - which side do you take?
Obama in 2008, deemed the idea of cap-and-trade policies a “monstrosity” despite the fact that he had once fought for the issue of climate change to be recognized within the Senate legislation (Goldenberg). California Republican Carly Fiorina, who was once considered for the Vice President position in McCain’s 2008 campaign, “has said on repeated occasions that she is ‘not sure’ climate change is real” (Goldenberg). Unfortunately for Republicans and other sources of opposition, every claim against the existence of global warming can be proven as untrue or understated with the evidence of climate change rapidly taking place on earth. For a visual, side-by-side comparison of fact to fiction, it is worth taking the time to visit Dave McCandless’s skeptics versus science chart at this link. If a Republican candidate is elected to the presidency at the end of this year, the people of the United States can expect to see a drop in the overall funding to prevent climate change; as one of the top global emitters of greenhouse gases, a future without efforts for carbon reduction would be dim at best.
Sources:
Goldenberg, Suzanne. “Republican hopefuls deny global warming.” The Guardian. 14 Sept. 2010. Web. 29 Feb 2012.
McCandless, Dave. “Climate Change Deniers vs. The Consensus.” Information is Beautiful. 2009. Web. 29 Feb. 2012.
Mooney, Chris. “Climate Info Graphic.” Climate Progress. Photo. 27 Feb. 2012. Web. 3 Mar. 2012.
Villarreal, Ryan. “Rick Santorum Global Warming Denial: ‘I Never Bought the Hoax’.” International Business News. 15 Feb. 2012. Web. 29 Feb. 2012.
For the experiment portion of our last class, we were lucky enough to be visited by Suffolk University employee and electrical enthusiast, Tom Vales, along with his awe-inspiring creations designed as alternatives to fossil fuels. As Mr. Vales provided us with a preface to his presentation, he noted that we as a society are “addicted” to the usage of coal and oil, despite the number of ingenious inventions we have at our disposal. The first energy alternative Mr. Vales showed us was called Peltier junction, which he had fastened together from a few metals, copper, water, and two coffee cups. The Peltier junction, as Mr. Vales explained, used heat in one cup and cold water in the other to produce electricity through the running motor; although the energy produced from this invention is not an efficient amount, it is ideal for smaller purposes such as beverage coolers in automobiles.
Traveling down the line of his displayed contraptions, Mr. Vales next presented to us what he identified as the Stirling engine, which was invented in 1816 as a substitution for steam engines due to their notorious habit of exploding from overheating. This creation runs off a cup of hot water – as the displacer moves up and down, the invention’s piston circulates hot air, which is what gave the contraption its alternate name, the hot air engine. According to Mr. Vales, this form of energy production is quite efficient, as submarines tend to use it in their generator to reduce the expelled noise level.
The next contraption Mr. Vales explained is commonly seen in household kitchens, and its internal function goes beyond the simplistic nature of its purpose: the barbecue lighter sparks its useful flame thanks to the Piezo effect taking place within its small, plastic body, as friction against the embedded piece of quartz crystal creates voltage. This same method of energy production was used for portable radios in the past.
The final creation displayed on the front table was described as the Mendocino motor from its birthplace fifteen years ago in California. This small contraption is equipped with a rotor that
Close-up of the Mendocino motor
floats within a magnetic field against gravity. Once a light source is applied to the motor’s four solar cells, the light energy causes the motor to spin rapidly. Mr. Vales lightheartedly revealed that he frequently makes these Mendocino motors and sells them over the Internet to be used as decorative pieces, although, as he joked, no one with a curious cat should own one of these spinning inventions.
Throughout the presentation thus far, the entire class had been peeking at the object placed behind Mr. Vales that resembled a spool of coppery twine placed atop a white gallon container. At this time, Mr. Vales began to introduce this contraption by giving us a brief history of the famous electrical engineer, Nicola Tesla, who emigrated from Serbia in 1880 to become one of the greatest contributors to the advancement of electricity. Through his work with financer George Westinghouse, Tesla was able to invent the power grid and therefore provide electrification for Niagra Falls through the transmission of power without wires – it is this invention that stood before us in the classroom, as recreated by Mr. Vales. Once he flipped the power switch, the parts of the contraption known as the Tesla coils began to produce a mesmerizing purple static spark at the top.
Keeping the contraption on, Mr. Vales demonstrated how different objects react once they get close enough to the powerful Tesla coils; at one point, he held up two different tubes to the sparking contraption, and the class watched in awe as the tube filled with xenon suddenly
Tom Vales demonstrating the conductivity of the Tesla coils.
illuminated to a bluish color, and the tube with two different diameters lit up pink in one half and blue in the other. Mr. Vales also demonstrated placing a Z-shaped wire on top of the contraption – once the power had been turned back on, the wire stayed atop the coil and began to spin clockwise at a rapid speed. This presentation was a treat for our class, and we were very appreciative as well as entertained by Mr. Vales visit. To view Mr. Vales’s experience with electricity and electrical devices, look for his electrical show in the springtime at Suffolk University.
The solar technology developed by the innovative company Solyndra LLC appeared to be a progressive solution for energy concerns back in 2009. Impressed by Solyndra’s promise of a better future through their use of high-quality solar panels, the United States Department of Energy, under the Obama administration, agreed to loan the company $535 million “to create so-called ‘green jobs,’ which we were told were the key to the future economic growth” (Barone). This step towards cleaner energy ended up backfiring in 2011 as Solyndra suddenly declared bankruptcy, resulting in a multi-million dollar loss of federal money as well as damage to the previously untainted presidency of Barack Obama.
According to the information available on the still-accessible Solyndra website, their process of equipping buildings with the advantage of solar energy seems flawless and promising, leaving little doubt as to why the Obama administration jumped at the chance to benefit their
President Obama with Solyndra workers
work. Each Solyndra system is made up of “cylindrical copper indium gallium diselenide (CIGS modules) and thin-film technology”, has the ability to withstand 130 mph winds, comes with a 25-year warranty, and costs less in time and money to install than any other commercialized solar construction (solyndra.com). Mesmerized by the innovation presented by this up-and-coming solar production company, the Department of Energy included the steep loan in their 2009 stimulus package; however, the DOE and private investors such as Oklahoman George Kaiser were unaware of the fact that the company was sliding towards bankruptcy and would be unable to ever pay back the federal government. Wary of Solyndra’s financial issues, PriceWaterhouseCoopers funded an audit of the company in 2010 and discovered that Solyndra “had accumulated losses of $558 million its five years of existence” (Barone). The full impact of the company’s financial turmoil became nationwide on August 31, 2011, as Solyndra filed for bankruptcy, “putting 1,100 out of work and potentially leaving taxpayers on the hook for $527 million” (Higgins). This news resulted in a breakdown of the “green jobs” plan devised by the federal government, as well as a scandal upon the Obama administration for its compliance to hand over the American people’s money to a failing firm.
Following the eruption of the Solyndra scandal, the Republican party jumped at the chance to criticize and blame President Obama, attacking his administration’s choices not only to
Solyndra solar panels
provide this huge loan to the jeopardized company, but also to ensure the return of the private investors’ loans before taxpayers’ money. Counteracting the Republican claims, Democrats made attempts to soften the blow of the Solyndra scandal by labeling it a “bipartisan scandal, noting that the Bush administration began the loan guarantee process [in January 2009]” (Higgins). Whether or not the Obama administration was aware of Solyndra’s financial troubles, the fact remains that the scandal has become an important factor in the consideration of his reelection this year.
Sources:
Barone, Michael. “Obama tainted by loan guarantees to solar firms.” Washington Examiner. 14 Sept. 2011. AEI. Web. 27 Feb. 2012.
Chinn, Paul. “President Obama Speaks at Solar Panel Manufacturing Facility.” Chicago Tribune. Photo. 18 Sept. 2011. Web. 28 Feb. 2012.
Energy BySolar. “Flat Roof Mount.” Photo. Web. 28 Feb. 2012.
Higgins, Sean. “Solyndra Scandal Continues To Grow For White House.” Investors Business Daily. 15 Sept. 2011: A01. Business Source Complete. Web. 27 Feb. 2012.
Reuters. “A sign at the entrance to the headquarters of bankrupt Solyndra LLC is shown in Fremont, Calif.” International Business Times. Photo. 24 Sept. 2011. Web. 28 Feb. 2012.
The lab experiment we completed in the last class involved the use of a photovoltaic cell to determine the voltage created by an outside light source. In order to complete this lab, my group used the computer-connected solar cell aligned with a ruler to measure the distance from the designated light source, which in this case was a miniature flashlight.
There were two parts to this lab: the first portion required us to shine the flashlight directly onto the panels of the solar cell from different distances (as measured by the ruler), thereby allowing the computer to calculate the differences in voltages for each trial. According to some advice we learned before this experiment, the further away the solar cell moved from the light source, the smaller the voltage amounts should appear on the computer screen.
As we began this part of the lab experiment, we began to notice flaws in our equipment that could affect our results. The first time we ran the voltage-calculating program on the computer to determine the charge input from the solar cell with no light source, we noticed that our numbers were significantly high despite the lack of light – apparently, the numbers were supposed to be lower than the ones we received, which ranged between .10 and .20. For the next four trials, we ran the program each time by moving the solar cell back in increments, starting at 1 centimeter, moving to 10 centimeters, then 20 and finally 30 centimeters. Our odd results indicated to us that something in the equipment was not allowing the program to produce accurate results, as the voltage numbers fluctuated from high to extremely low, then crept back up again. Likewise, our supposedly faulty results were also skewed in the troublesome Excel sheet, and we had no choice but to redo our entire experiment
For our second round of trials, we did not begin with the lack of light source, and jumped in to using the solar cell at 1 centimeter away from the flashlight for the first trial. As Fig. 1 evidences, the voltage results ranged from .5 to .6, which are considered a normal high for the light source shining so close to the solar cell panels. However, for the second trial, our fears
Fig. 1
from the faulty first experiment came back as the results from 10 centimeters away ranged from .2 to .3, followed by an increase to .3 to .4 when the solar cell was moved 20 centimeters away. Finally, as Fig. 1 shows, the voltage stayed constant between .3 and .4 even when the solar cell was 30 centimeters away from the flashlight. At the end of this portion of the lab experiment, we were instructed to calculate the average voltage for each trial and create a scatter chart with the data; looking at Fig. 2, there is a clear inconsistency in our result averages. Logically, the numbers should
Fig. 2
have gradually decreased as the solar cell moved further away from its light source; considering our extreme caution in the prevention of human error for this second round of trials, we can only conclude that flaws in our technological equipment could have yielded such odd results.
The second part to the solar cell lab involved the use of thin, colored filters to be placed in front of the light source to alter the light absorption of the solar cell, which had to be kept at a constant distance from the flashlight. Choosing a distance of 10 centimeters, we first placed the red film in front of the flashlight, ran the voltage calculation program, and watched as the results ranged between .3 and .4, the average for which we calculated to be approximately .36892. For the next trial, we used the green filter, which produced voltage results between .4 and .5 and yielded an average of
Fig. 3
.49851. The final trial using the blue film gave us results mainly in the .4 range, dipping down to .39 at only one instance. The average of this trial was .4202. Concluding with our experiment, we graphed the average results of this portion of the lab into a bar chart, which is evidenced in Fig. 3. The blue and green filters yielded higher voltage results than the red film as can be seen in the graph, concluding that the darker red absorbs more of the light to make it incapable of reaching the solar cell.
The process of hydraulic fracturing (commonly referred to as “hydrofracking”) was first used in the Mt. Airy Quarry located in North Carolina in the early 1900s in order to obtain granite from the bedrock underground. Beginning in 1949 and continuing for the next 40 years, scientists improved the function of hydraulic fracturing in order to obtain the desirable natural resources trapped in the rock beneath the Earth’s surface, finally debuting the process we know today in 1988. Oil shale, composed of organic matter including kerogen, illite, kaolinite, and smectite, must be sucked up from the pores of the clay, along with the similar resource, shallow coalbed methane (CBM), providing the United States with a national alternative to foreign fuels.
With a high amount of pressure, a mixture of water, sand, and chemicals, is blasted down the hydrofracking well; originally, the mixture was limited only to water and sand, but scientists
Diagram of hydraulic fracturing process.
began adding different chemicals to thicken the water, lessen friction within the well, or eliminate bacteria, as well as many other reasons. With the liquid inside the wellbore, its pressure is intended to cause the surrounding rock to fracture. Once the wellbore has reached maximum capacity, the proppants (which can range from sand to ceramic or aluminum beads) to prop open the newly created fractures. Following this procedure, the liquid is returned to the surface for disposal or treatment, while the proppants are left beneath the ground to allow the gas and oil to flow (Chesapeake Energy).
While some Americans see the process of hydraulic fracturing as an innovative and futuristic way to obtain the natural resources we need at a more local level, others worry about the environmental impacts of the process, unable to see beyond these concerns to the benefits hydrofracking offers. According to The United States Environmental Protection Agency, potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing sights and their conducted work can be stress on surface and ground water as a result of its use for providing effective pressure to the system; another possibility is the contamination of drinking water in case of a wastewater spill or an error in the sight’s construction. It is the resurfaced water previously used underground for pressurizing that worries the American public and the EPA alike as its disposal is neither simple nor harmless.
While the EPA’s national law enforces that hydraulic fracturing sights may not dump their wastewater into national United States waterways, they must therefore provide companies with the means to dispose of this used liquid, which could potentially contain TDS (total dissolved solids), natural radioactive particles, or metals, inevitably harmful to humans as well as unaccustomed areas of the environment. There are three possible forms of disposal of this wastewater: firstly, if the water is low enough in its pollutant content, it may be used as a supplement for freshwater sources. If its pollutant levels exceed EPA standards, the process of underground injection can be applied, yet this will not eliminate the entirety of the wastewater amount. Its remainder must be sent to either a public or private treatment facility for final disposal; however, the EPA has discovered in recent years that these facilities are not effectively equipped for such a delicate and potentially harmful disposal process, and they are seeking to offer improvements within the next few years (EPA).
As of 2007, over 4,000 hydraulic fracturing sights were operating in the United States, and the number has continued to grow thanks to the increasing fuel prices coming from overseas (Natural Gas Americans). The map of the American Northeast identifies the central locations of shale reserves, evidencing that many of the most used hydrofracking facilities are located in
Location of the most potent reserve, the Marcellus Formation.
North Carolina and Maryland (including the cited source, Chesapeake Energy). However, the Southeast is also home to many known location of underground shale gas and oil, with states including Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, and even stretching into the Midwest to Kansas, Nebraska, and North Dakota. Although its effectiveness as a process and its relationship with the environment are still being investigated by the EPA, the fact that hydraulic fracturing provides better local resources for fuels is inarguable.
Sources:
Chesapeake Energy, Inc. http://www.hydraulicfracturing.com
Last week’s lab experiment involved the application of what we learned as Faraday’s Law, which required the generation of electricity in a flashlight-like object; within this tube, a magnet traveled back and forth between the wire coils and thus created an amount of electricity stored in the capacitor for later use as illumination. Prior to beginning the experiment, we learned that the more times we shook the tube, the more electricity was to be generated. After hooking the flashlight to the computer for result recording purposes, the computer would read the electricity in the tube 30 times (or every second) for each trial executed, thus creating a waveform chart of results. We were instructed to record five different trials with the tube; for the first trial, we were not supposed to shake the tube whatsoever and observe the voltage results displayed by the computer. For the four following trials, we were to increase the intensity of our shaking and subsequently observe these results as well.
The first trial involved resting the flashlight tube upright on the table and running the generator program as we simply sat by and watched the voltage results appear on the computer
Fig. 1
screen, despite the fact that we were not shaking the tube, therefore not creating new electricity between the magnet and the tube’s coils. According to our results, which can be seen in Fig. 1, no negative voltages were recorded by the system, yet the visual readout on the screen showed how the voltage varied up and down on the chart in the positive number range. Worrying that we had made an error in our first trial, we repeated this procedure, this time placing the flashlight tube on its side; to our relief, the results were similar, and likewise did not produce any negative voltages. With our results transferred immediately onto a Microsoft Excel sheet, we then calculated the square-sum of the first trial’s results and discovered it to be .955, although we were unclear as to how low this would prove to be.
For the second trial, we concluded that we should shake the tube exactly 10 times within the 30-second timespan, keeping in mind that our shake intensity was meant to be low at this point in the experiment. While some of the voltage result pairs were recorded as if the object had been resting, other readings were dramatically different, some dropping low into the negative range as can be seen in Fig. 2. One aspect of this trial that should be noted is the slight inconsistency of our shakes; some were either light in intensity while
Fig. 2
others were harder, and they were irregularly spaced throughout the 30 seconds. After calculating the sum-square in our Excel sheet, we found it to be a drastic increase from the first trial, jumping from .955 to 32.614. The third trial yielded similar results in its dramatic drops in negative numbers as we shook the tube a bit more vigorously 20 times. For this trial (as shown in Fig. 3), the sum-square came out to be 81.697, which is an interestingly high increase from the second trial due to the fact that the recorded voltage results were not too different.
The fourth trial involved more intensity and 30 shakes within a 30-second time period. Our results for this trial can be seen in Fig. 4 as the voltage spikes towards the end of the 30 seconds, mysteriously jumping up to 6.477 all of a sudden; perhaps this is because the
Fig. 3
magnet had continuously created energy and it had all been captured for recording at once by this point in the trial. After this jump in voltage, the numbers fall drastically back down despite the constant intensity and spacing between the shakes. Interestingly, the sum-square of this trial was calculated to be 44.447, significantly lower than the sum-square of the more drastic results from the third trial.
Fig. 4
For the fifth and final trial, we increased the intensity of the shakes and their frequency to 40 within the 30-second timespan. As we tried to get a feel for how often we should shake the tube to reach the goal of 40 shakes in this time period, our shaking speed was off at the beginning of the trial, as evidenced in Fig. 5. After this slight hiccup in our experiment, we reached a steady shaking speed and the recorded results leveled out to what we had seen thus far to be “normal.” For our final sum-square calculation, the result jumped up yet again to its highest peak of 143.9.
In conclusion, we believe that the only trial that was off in its success was Trial 4 due to its surprisingly smaller results and sum-square despite the increase to 30 shakes. After generating all of this electricity by shaking the tube so that the magnet would travel back and forth through the metal coils inside, we pressed the rubber button and were blinded by the blue-
Fig. 5
fluorescence of the light bulb. The next time you fall asleep with your emergency flashlight on your bedside table, consider the process of voltage generation you must go through to have your safety light!
