Contemporary Science & Innovation

As the severity of global warming becomes a reality impossible to ignore, the world’s leading automobile companies are working alongside national governments to ensure the creation of more fuel-efficient and environmentally friendly vehicles. Although the total elimination of fossil fuels in the automobile industry is years from being a possibility, current strides are being made to reduce the amount of carbon being burned into the air by raising the production standards for gas mileage and lowering the acceptable value of greenhouse gas emissions. Beginning this year, America’s annual vehicle models must adhere to “the nation’s first-ever law requiring a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions” (Clayton). It is important to note that only newly-produced cars will have to abide by this law; unfortunately, the majority of cars on American roads today are either used or considered an older model, and with the trend of SUV purchases not far in our past, those who cannot afford to buy new cars are left with the vehicles which cannot help but emit greater quantities of greenhouse gases. Despite the fact that previous standards for carbon emissions were set decades ago, the automobile industry has been slightly careless in their production, only being charged “$55 per vehicle for every 1 mpg that their fleet average mpg falls short of the relevant standard”, therefore causing the need for governmental enforcement over their newer models (Anderson et al. 3). This emissions law insists that by 2016, vehicles must not produce more than 9 ounces of greenhouse gases for every mile traveled, nor must their average mile-per-gallon rate drop below 35.5; however, in order to achieve this goal, the automobile industry will need an extra “$52 billion – adding about $950 to the price of a car. But consumers should be able to save enough over three years to pay for the extra cost,” suggesting that the additional cost of the vehicle will eventually be reimbursed at the fuel pump (Clayton).

With the introduction of the 2012 vehicle models and their compliance with the effectual carbon laws, prospective purchasers are provided with a wide range of economically and ecologically advanced options. During the last week of January, the city of Portland, Oregon, held their annual automobile exhibition to introduce hybrid models such as the new Toyota Prius V Wagon (which receives an estimated 53 miles per gallon) and efficient luxury vehicles like the sleek Fiat 500, which is estimated to use only 38 miles per gallon on the highway (Rafter). Strides in the direction of gasoline elimination were also presented at the Portland International Auto Show, namely Honda’s attempt at a version of their popular Civic using natural gas and the Nissan LEAF’s new technology involving roadside electrical charging

stations; although these two examples evidence the automobile industry’s progress in the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the popularity of these vehicles has yet to spread nationwide due to the inconvenience of limited refueling locations (Rafter). What seems to be apparent is that the West Coast of the United States, including Oregon and California, are leading the nation in their efforts to provide drivers with opportunities for more efficient vehicles. With the help of future improvements in the automobile industry, hopefully the advantages of these developments will spread across the country to the East Coast.

 

Sources:

Anderson, Soren, Fischer, Carolyn, Parry, Ian, Sallee, James M. “Automobile Fuel Economy Standards: Impacts, Efficiency, and Alternatives.” Resources for the Future, Oct. 2010. Web. 8 Feb. 2012.

Muttley. Photograph. Car Humor, 27 Jan. 2012. Web. 13. Feb. 2012.

Clayton, Mark. “Auto emissions: New greenhouse gas caps raise gas mileage standards.” Christian Science Monitor, Apr. 2010: N.PAG. MasterFILE Premier. Web. 8 Feb. 2012.

Honda. 2012 Honda Civic Natural Gas. Photograph. Softpedia, 4 Oct. 2011. Web. 13 Feb. 2012.

Rafter, Michelle V. “8 New Gas-Saving Car Trends.” SecondAct, 27 Jan. 2012. Web. 8 Feb. 2012

 

Prior to our second experiment with a robotics lab, my class learned about force and motion relating to Isaac Newton’s fundamental laws of physics. Of the three that we discussed, his second law applies most accurately to our experiment from February 6^th, which is that an object’s force is equal to its mass multiplied by its acceleration (F = ma). According to the information provided to us, as an object increases in mass, its acceleration will decrease with a fixed force; in other sense, if an object has a fixed mass and increases its power level, its acceleration will also increase. This is the ideal preview for our robotics experiment in which we had to use a motorized pulley to record its variants by experimenting four times with the same mass and four times with the same power level.

My group was given a pendulum-like weight to suspend from a provided structure, creating a pulley system with the computerized motor at the base. The gold object meant to hang from the structure could be taken apart to decrease its mass. The instructions were to allow the motor to run for approximately one second (although this proved difficult to calculate manually) and measure the stopping height of the object with a ruler.

For the first set of trials, we sustained the object’s mass at 0.23 kilograms and varied the power level inputted into the LabView program. The results of this trial group can be seen in the first 4 columns in this Microsoft Excel chart:

 

Based on the outcomes of these four trial experiments, we were able to come to the conclusion that the object experiences a higher rate of acceleration as the power level, or force, is increased. In the second set of trials (as shown in the lower four columns of Figure 1), we sustained the power level at 75% and only reduced the mass of the object. Compared to the data from the previous trial set, the greater force resulted in increased acceleration, which stayed fairly constant throughout the four experiments.

Unfortunately for my group, an unsure amount of our data was skewed in the LabView program, leaving us with shaky results to use for the final calculations, which had to be added to our experiments. The two new variables were the object’s different values of potential energy and the overall power used by the computerized motor. Referring to the chart Figure 1, the object’s potential energy is identified in the column labeled mgh, referring to the mass multiplied by the measured height and the constant rate of gravity (which, as we know, is 9.8 m/s squared). The power used by the motor falls under the column labeled mgh/t, which uses the same values divided by the allotted time. As evidenced by Figure 2, the comparison of the power level and the power used by the motor stays with a fairly constant curve, only slightly varying in the portion of the experiment concerning the single 75% power level. Despite our technological issues, I would have to say that the steady increase in power usage relating to the programmed level is what we expected to see by the end of our lab activity.

 

The concept of demand response exists as a conscious reaction to excessive energy use within recent decades. As electrical consumers participating in demand response programs reduce their average number of exhausted kilowatts, they will experience financial savings as well as contributing to environmental friendliness. In relation to the supply/demand ratio, this concept is meant to cut the demand of electricity, thereby increasing the availability of the electrical supply.

Demand response programs can be broken down into 2 primary classifications – Incentive Based Programs and Price Based Programs. The former offers financial benefits for participants, while the latter employs the use of preset prices aimed at inspiring a decrease in energy use in order to experience savings. These two programs are further defined based on different forms of consumer participation:

 

Demand Response Programs:

I)              Incentive Based Programs (IBP)

A. Classical:

1)    direct control – automatically shut down

2)    curtailable programs – determined by set values

B. Market Based:

1)    demand bidding – customers compete for  lowest reduction

2)    emergency DR – customers paid during emergencies

3)    ancillary services – customers paid to be on bidding standby

II)            Price Based Programs (PBP)

* rates based on peak period usage and the following conditions:

A. time of use

B. critical peak pricing

C. extreme day pricing

D. extreme day critical peak pricing

E. real time pricing

 

Electrical customers who choose to take part in one of these energy-saving programs will experience numerous benefits, aside from the aforementioned monetary payback. According to a study conducted by McKinsey & Company in 2001, an estimated “$10-15 billion in annual benefits can be achieved from participation of all customers in dynamic pricing programs on a wide scale across the US” (R. Walawalkar et al. 1553) Participants may also be privy to safety and convenience of a demand response program as they have been proven to prevent power outages. However, for those who are conscious and concerned with the effects of climate change as a result from overwhelming amounts of expelled energy throughout the past couple decades, the long-term benefits of demand response programs speak for the importance of this development; some of the primary environmental benefits “include better land utilization as a result of avoided/deferred new electricity infrastructure… air and water quality improvement… and reduction of natural resources depletion” (Albadi, El-Saadany 1991).

The costs required to take part in one of these programs are significantly less financially devastating than the results of continuance with excessive energy use; as long as customers abide by the conditions of their chosen program, the only financial cost they will experience is the initial setup of the required demand response technology, which includes “smart thermostats, peak load controls, energy management systems, and onsite generation units” (Albadi, El-Saadany 1992). Although the perception of these installation factors may be expensive and overwhelming, the estimated savings as a result of demand response outweighs the starting cost. Within the next decade, the United States Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) predicts a nationwide savings of over $60 billion “if demand response is incorporated into RTO market design and operations” (R. Walawalkar et al. 1554).

Thanks to the increased availability of demand response programs, electrical consumers now have the opportunity to save in a financial and personal sense as well as conserve energy in a world where it is wrongly viewed as endless and inconsequential. As Virginia Representative Rick Boucher notes in his 2003 report, the technology required in demand response programs allows participants to better visualize the effects of their electrical needs: “By enabling consumers to access accurate data on their usage of electricity and its costs, the use of advanced meters would empower consumers to make more informed and accurate decisions regarding their usage” (Boucher). If the FERC achieves its goal of nationwide exposure to demand response benefits, perhaps the results of cutting back on electricity use will assist the environment in the fight against the threatening effects of climate change.

Sources:

Albadi, M. H., El-Saadany, E.F. “A summary of demand response in electricity markets.” Elsevier: Electric Power Systems Research 78 (2007): 1989-1996. Web. 4 Feb. 2012.

Bonneville Power Administration. How Demand Response Works. 2010. www.bpa.gov. Web. 4 Feb. 2012.

Boucher, Rick. “Smart meters mean smarter consumers.” The Hill: Special Energy Section. 2003. Web. 4 Feb. 2012.

Chevva, Konda Reddy, Fernands, Stephen, Thakur, Netra, Walawalkar, Rahul. “Evolution and current status of demand response (DR) in electricity markets: Insights from PJM and NYISO.” Elsevier: Energy 35 (2009): 1553-1560. Web. 4 Feb. 2012.

During our initial robotics lab activity on Monday, January 20, Angela Bray, Phil Sommer, and myself, built a computerized Lego car fondly nicknamed “Rover.” As we familiarized ourselves with Rover and the LabView program, we experimented with different functions and their compiled reactions with our robotic car. After successfully programming Rover to drive in a straight line while playing a cheerful tune, we moved on to testing the wheel power functions directed to Port A and Port C on the Lego car. It was at this time that we discovered that varying the power to each port caused the car to stray from its head-on direction; by programming one port to output a higher power level than the other, Rover’s wheels turned in a circular direction.

Much to our pleasure, this week’s lab assignment involved experimenting in this manner with the port power levels. In order to successfully complete one of the tasks, the power levels had to vary enough to produce a diameter exceeding 2 feet within the circle traveled by the car. Using our knowledge of power variation from the previous casual trial, we succeeded in creating a large circle by programming one port to output a power level of 50 and the second to output 25.

The second portion of our robotics activity required us to measure the distance traveled by Rover given our inputted power levels, and to then compare the results with the calculations given by the LabView program. In order to properly determine the mean distance between the ruler and the program’s computations, we were provided with the fractional error equation:

 

fractional error =  | druler - dprogram / [(druler + dprogram) /2] |

 

We completed 4 different trial scenarios for this experiment, starting with the lowest speed and increasing the levels, and each only running for 1 second. For the first trial, we programmed the power levels for both ports to output a speed of 25. Upon compiling the program, Rover jolted forward and stopped at 6 centimeters according to our measurement. LabView calculated that Rover had traveled 5.617 centimeters, and that his wheels had turned a third of a full rotation. The calculated fractional error of this trial was 6.6 centimeters.

During the second trial, we increased the outputted power to 55 and watched as Rover sped along and stopped abruptly at the 16-centimeter mark, which matched the distance results provided by LabView. This time, Rover’s wheels completed 95% of one full rotation to reach this distance.

By the third trial, we began to notice a developing trend in the relationship between our distance measurements and the LabView calculations. When Rover’s power level was increased to 75 (with the wheels turning 1.47 times), his higher speed caused his driving directions to become skewed as he veered to the left, causing us to grow concerned with the accuracy of our measurements. According to our results, Rover’s wheels stopped at the 23.5-centimeter mark, while LabView demands that the car stopped at precisely 25 centimeters. The fractional error between the ruler and the program resulted in 6.18 centimeters.

The following and final trial, with a new power level of 80 to both Port A and Port C, proved to be the most difficult to successfully accomplish as Rover drove in a curve away from his designated track; annoyed by this experiment complication, we repeated the trial and measured that the car had traveled approximately 28 centimeters using 1.55 wheel rotations. However, the results did not comply with those provided by LabView, which stated that Rover had only driven 26 centimeters. This trial yielded the largest fractional error of the experiment at 7.4 centimeters.

As we increased the outputted speed, our trials differed further from the calculated results of LabView and our measurement accuracy became compromised by the complications in efficiency. In conclusion, we determined that a higher power level produces a greater distance, yet with the higher speed comes the skewed direction of the car and the risk of collecting incorrect data.

 

Within the first few years of this new millennium, Planet Earth and its human inhabitants have suffered from two massive, destructive earthquakes and their subsequent tsunamis. In the final December days of 2004, Southeast Asian countries were devastated by the Sumatra earthquake and its roaring rogue wave, killing thousands of helpless civilians along the coastlines. Seven years later, the technologically advanced nation of Japan was shocked by a similar tragedy originating offshore in the Pacific Ocean. However, unlike the Sumatra earthquake, the Tokohu earthquake of 2011 and its reactive tsunami caused an unexpected and threatening consequence: the breakdown of a seaside nuclear plant called Fukushima Daiichi.

On March 11, spontaneous seismic activity in the Pacific Ocean sparked the creation of a tsunami reaching an extended height of 41 meters; the combination of these two elements caused one of the most devastating natural disasters in Japanese history. For the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, the culprit in its destruction was the subsequent tsunami. Constructed in the 1960s, the plant had been designed to withstand strong earthquakes, but only 3.1 meters worth of tsunami height (Nöggerath et al 38). As the rogue wave tumbled over the plant’s inadequate sea wall, the nuclear cooling devices were destroyed by the force and resulted in an escape of radioactivity into the surrounding area. According to research collected by scientists at Cardiff University, “the full extent of radiation leakage is yet to be determined… lethal levels of radiation had been detected at the site, raising concerns about the scale of the impacts, particularly for workers” (Butler et al 4). Later in their article, they observe that 170,000 people within a 20-kilometer radius of Fukushima Daiichi were evacuated for the fear of radiation exposure. Later in 2011, the United Nations dubbed the Fukushima Daiichi disaster “the world’s worst nuclear accident since Chernobyl” (Sweeney). Upon investigation of this terrifying event, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) uncovered numerous flaws in the plant’s design which could have prevented the nuclear disaster had they been acknowledged by the plant’s owners, the Tokyo Electrical Power Company (TEPCO).

Aside from the protective sea wall’s incapability to prevent any wave taller than 3.1 meters, Fukushima Daiichi failed to meet numerous other requirements for a nuclear power plant. To prevent the main cause of the plant’s breakdown, “the electrical device for the main cooling pumps, its switchgear, and the emergency diesel generators should have had a much higher resistance to flooding” (Nöggerath et al 42). In addition to this crucial element, Fukushima Daiichi lacked a backup method of cooling that would be guaranteed to withstand water damage from a tsunami. Other problems with the plant’s design include an insufficient venting system and “a hydrogen re-combiner system in the reactor buildings, which led to three explosions that released large amounts of radioactive material into the environment” (Nöggerath et al 43). Thus, the investigative conclusion reached by the IAEA, with the help of surfacing information, was that TEPCO “failed to properly review the tsunami countermeasures in accordance with IAEA guidelines and continued to allow the Fukushima plant to operate… despite having received clear warnings from at least one member of a government advising committee” (Nöggerath et al, 37). To envision that a nation as advanced and efficient as Japan would ignore possible consequences of such a dangerous magnitude is unsettling, as observant countries such as Germany have now come to believe.

In particular, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States, have begun to use the disaster at Fukushima Daiichi to change their own views on nuclear power. While recent polls in the United States show that those in favor of nuclear power still exceeds those opposed after the Japanese incident, the same cannot be said for Germany, whose government has decided “to completely phase out nuclear power plants by 2022” (Butler et al 6). The German government argues that their decision to withdraw from the advancement of nuclear plans is based on their belief that nuclear power can be replaced with a safer alternative, although no examples have been provided. However, in the United States and the United Kingdom, the Fukushima Daiichi disaster, although tragic, has proven to be an educational experience and “has allowed for continued adherence to… further new nuclear power occurring concomitantly with the development of more safety measures, procedures, and knowledge” (Butler et al 6). Unfortunately for Japan, the mistakes made in the design of the Fukushima Daiichi disaster plant has cost them the endangerment of thousands of lives and nearly US$124 billion worth of damage. As reporter Dave Sweeney acknowledges, the tragedy of this nuclear disaster will not recede from the minds of Japanese civilians any time soon: “Today, tomorrow and for many decades to come the Japanese people and environment must now live with the radioactive threat and reality of the nuclear industry’s hollow assurances.”

 

 

Sources:

Butler, Catherine, Parkhill, Karen A., and Pidgeon, Nicholas F. “Nuclear Power After Japan: The Social Dimensions.” Cardiff University, 2 Nov. 2011: 3-13. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development. Web. 24 Jan. 2012.

 

Geller, Robert J., Gusiakov, Viacheslav K., and Nöggerath, Johannis. “Fukushima: The myth of safety, the reality of geoscience.” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. 2011: 37-46. Web. 24 Jan. 2012.

 

Sweeney, Dan. “Fukushima Fallout.” Habitat Online Nov. 2011: 26. Web. 24 Jan. 2012.