SCI 184 A

Last week our class ventured into Cambridge to visit MIT’s Plasma Fusion Center.  We were lucky enough to even have a tour of where the action happens. Before this tour occurred however we sat in a classroom and were given a brief explanation of how plasma fusion works, and what technology and tools were needed to create this plasma.  We also discussed how current energy generates from fossil fuels that are underground and burn we have to find or create a better more sustainable alternative.  We are running out of fossil fuels, and they are causing dangerous greenhouse gases to penetrate the atmosphere thereby remaining catalysts for global warming.  Scientists around the world are examining other methods such as solar energy, fission, wind energy, and fusion.  At MIT, they are working hard to find a way to generate enough energy through plasma fusion to power the world.  With fusion, they heat water until it becomes plasma, and they harness it in a donut shaped magnetic field in order to contain the ions and electrons.  According to our student lecture before the tour, plasma is a “sea of negatively charged electrons and positively charged neutrons”, but the main problem is being able to contain it energy, as it’s incredibly hot.  As we began touring their plasma center, we saw their “C-Mod”, which is a fusion tokomak that they’re able to harness the plasma with.  They still haven’t figured out how to generate enough plasma to fuel electricity with, but every day they’re a step closer to their goals.  It’s important they continue to receive government funding as well as support from the community as they strive to create positive sustainable change.  Below are a few images from our trip, I hope you enjoy them!

Below is an image of the control room, where their results are displayed on many monitors.

This next image is what’s used to hold down a space ship before it launches.  MIT uses many of these strong pieces to hold C-Mod in place.

And finally, C-Mod itself!

Thanks for reading!

There has been much debate in regards to shutting down the power plant at Indian Point, New York.  The Plant, located in Buchanan, New York, has been one of the top power sources for NYC since its start in 1962.  According to the New York Times, “the plant, which is now owned by Entergy, has encountered a string of accidents and mishaps since its beginning and has appeared on the federal list of the nation’s worst nuclear power plants”, which demonstrates one reason why many believe it should be shut down.

New York’s Governor, Andrew Cuomo ordered it to be shut down permanently, although the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said it would review the plant and allow New York officials to take part in it’s review.  Governor Cuomo has made it his goal to completely redesign and reshape New Yorks current energy policies and regulations.  Closing the power plant would be a huge step in what he feels is the best direction for his state to take.  However replacing the energy provided by the plant would take a long time and a lot of money, something most American’s don’t have.  The plant provides approximately ¼ of the power in NYC and other counties just north of the city.  Closing of this plant would therefore cause potential power failures.  The closing would also put its workers out of employment.  In a society where the job market is slim to none, this would be devastating to the plants employees and families.

Below is an image of Governor Cuomo.

But Governor Cuomo has continued to warn that he will insist the two reactors be closed in 2013 and 2015.  Many who oppose this argue that the state doesn’t have the funds to even begin dismantling a reactor.  (Many say it could cost nearly $1 billion per reactor to disassemble and move to places where it can be kept).  They also say replacement options cannot be created in the amount of time the governor has allotted.

There is a positive feeling for some however; as many believe there is a way to create more efficient energy that offers far less emissions.  With the global warming crisis ever present, many argue the best option is to close the plant and figure out a better plan.  The Fukishima disaster also brought many to support the shutting down of the plant, as people fear a disaster at the Indian Point Plant.

The debate will likely continue until the plant is either destroyed, or plans to close it change.  Regardless, there will be positives and negatives no matter the outcome.  All we can agree on is its time to think carefully before building any future energy plants.

Sources:

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/i/indian_point_nuclear_power_plant_ny/index.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Point_Energy_Center

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/13/nyregion/vision-for-cheap-power-even-if-indian-point-nuclear-plant-is-closed.html

http://www.politicker.com/2012/03/08/rudy-giuliani-says-closing-the-indian-point-nuclear-plant-would-be-a-catastrophe-for-new-york-city/

With every issue, there will be those who support it, and those who choose to simply ignore it.  Global Warming is no exception.  There are many who deny the existence of global warming, including some respected scientists.  Many corporations, especially those who profit off the very things that cause global warming argue that it’s simply a myth created by theories not facts.  The Huffington Post states that a mere “57% of Americans believe global warming is related to human activities”.  There are also many who claim global warming was created by the media, or liberal politicians attempting to make conservative’s look bad and win votes.  John Coleman, known for founding “The Weather Channel” even called global warming “the greatest scam in history”. It’s absolutely insane that the founder of a major source of weather information finds himself able to deny it, when his company is the one reporting huge spikes in temperature and a record setting warm winter.  It shows you just how willing people are to close their eyes to what’s directly in front of them.  According to a New York Times Blog, “the world’s average land temperature has risen by about 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit since the mid-1950s”, a staggering conclusion that should prove skeptics how wrong they are.  Sadly, even the numerical facts seem unable to sway most of the deniers.

Below, is an image of a Newsweek cover that discussed this very issue.

I find it amazing that even with so much evidence demonstrating just how real the global warming crisis is, people will still go on record denying its existence.  It’s a terrifying thought that brings to mind a time in history where many Germans denied the existence of the Holocaust.  American’s and everyone else in the world were horrified by this, yet they choose to ignore what history has taught them and turn a blind eye to the crisis of today.  One must wonder, how many lives will have to be lost, how many species extinct before people will begin to recognize the truth of this crisis.  And sadly, will it simply be too late? Below is an image of melting ice caps, and just below that, a polar bear.  Will the ignorance and laziness of mankind lead these beautiful and amazing creatures toward their final days? Their numbers are dwindling… one can only hope we can save them in time.

Sources:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/22/most-dangerous-global-war_n_330614.html

http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/climate-weather/photos/7-surprising-global-warming-deniers/nonbelievers

Our class today included an innovative demonstration about alternative energy and electricity by Suffolk University Professor Tom Vales.  The presentation began with a discussion about our world running out of coal and current energy sources, and the pressing need for alternative energy.  The first example Mr. Vales demonstrated was a thermoelectric cooling and heating machine placed in water-filled coffee cups.  One cup contained hot water and the other had cold water.  When the poles of the device touched the two different water temperatures it created a voltage that harnessed its electricity onto a small fan, causing it to spin.  Mr. Vales informed us that the device was named after Jean Charles Athanase Peltier, and is called a Peltier Junction Thermoelectric Generator.

In the image below, Mr. Vales shows us how he holds a light and generates beautiful electricity from the power grid.

Mr. Vales second experiment exemplified how a generator “generates” energy by moving hot air.  His third examined how light causes magnets to move within two poles.  When light hit the machine it caused it to spin by using magnets.  Next, Mr. Vales talked about Nikola Tesela, the man who is responsible for inventing the power grid.  Mr. Vales turned the power on the electricity tower he’d created, and when he held light bulbs out they both lit up.  In his final experiment, he held a piece of wood with a light on it, and when it made contact with the sparks generated from the grid tower the light turned on.  At the end of his presentation he showed pictures of him and his friends “playing” with electricity.  His presentation was informative and interesting, and really demonstrated how creative ideas for alternative energy can be.

Below is a video of Mr. Vales presentation.

Alternative Energy and Electricity

It’s been several months since news of the Solyndra scandal first broke out.  Yet there are still many unanswered questions regarding it.  Like many of my peers, I find some way to keep up with the news and current events.  My methods of doing so constantly differ; one day I might watch the morning or evening news, one day I might read one or several newspapers, or some days I rely on Twitter to keep me up to date.  Though I’ve heard much about all the controversy regarding the Solyndra scandal, all I really took away from it was that it’s become yet another political piece of meat for politicians to fight over.

When I first began researching the issue for the purpose of this blog, I found myself pouring over news articles.  It was amazing to see how the issue changed in print depending on whether the journalist leaned toward the left or right in politics.  Political issues aside, the most basic fact about the entire ordeal is that the California based solar panel maker (Solyndra) managed to go bankrupt after getting $535 million dollars in loan guarantees from Obama’s administration.  Many critics ask if the Energy Department failed to truly examine the company before allowing the loan.  Many others wonder if the Obama administration was out of line in putting pressure on the loan guarantee for the struggling company.  But the major issue that both sides of government can agree on is that the energy policy needs an examination.  Sadly, there are some Right Wingers such as Cliff Stearns, a Republican Representative from Florida who argued that this downfall “proves that green energy isn’t going to be a solution”.  One can only hope that the rest of the world doesn’t choose to simply jump to conclusions as he did.  But to give him the benefit of the doubt, perhaps he was simply lacking on background of this issue.  In case he or others like him ever venture to read this student blog, I’ll briefly explain a bit.

When President Obama first authorized the loan in 2009, it was the hope that the corporation would create approximately 4,000 new jobs in the United States.  Sadly, this past September the company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and laid off almost 100% of its employees, forcing the government to pay back the loan it guaranteed two years earlier.   Though many argue that Obama’s administration inappropriately pushed to get the guarantee approved, some quickly point out that the process of the loan began a few years earlier, when President George W. Bush was in office.

In 2011, The New York Times stated that the Obama administration should be held accountable for failing to properly evaluate Solyndra’s business proposals.  The paper also reported that Frank Rusco who worked in the Government Accountability Office listed findings that demonstrated the fact that the approval for the loan came before any officials had finished the legal evaluations of the company. The Washington Post stated that the Obama administration also allowed Solyndra to continue receiving money from taxpayers after it had fallen to its loan. To make matters worse for the Obama administration, it was leaked to the press that the company had spent much of their revenue on lobbying for Obama, and several top executives and shareholders of Solyndra had made financial contributions to the Obama administration. The photo below was taken during an interview with President Obama regarding the Solyndra scandal… he looks less than pleased…

Now, you might be asking yourself, what does this have to do with energy, efficiency or going green? Well the answer would be… absolutely nothing! Sadly the entire scandal falls into dirty politicians, it has nothing to do with whether or not going green is good solution to our troubled environment.  Solyndra builds alternatives to silicon-based solar panels, and may in fact be a great solution in helping our world go green, but that never seems to make it into the news.  Instead, the “scandal” is yet again, political.  It’s long past time for the government to quit debating, and be honest.  Global warming is a huge (and scary!) issue for our society today, and if government spent half the time they waste debating on working toward solutions we might finally start to make a difference.  With how big of a crisis our environment is in, clean energy subsidies are  necessary to start fixing our world.  Perhaps in a perfect world we could work without them, but unfortunately, life isn’t perfect, and to get things done often requires the financial and supportive backing of the government.

Below is a link to an video regarding this scandal. Do you think the Obama administration is guilty of “dirty politics” in this scandal?

Solyndra Scandal

Sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solyndra_loan_controversy

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-09-18/news/ct-met-kass-0918-20110918_1_solyndra-loan-guarantee-obama-fundraisers-obama-white-house

http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/2011/09/solyndra-scandal-exposes-lie-government-investment/118393

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904836104576558763644374614.html

This past week our class schedule was a little different. Due to the long weekend, we were scheduled for a makeup class on Friday morning.  Unfortunately I found myself having to drive to NH at 4 am for a family commitment, so I was unable to attend our Friday class.  My roommate happens to be in the class, and thankfully he took detailed and accurate notes so he could go over every step of the lab with me.  My blog today will reflect his findings according to the computer, as we didn’t have access to the program to obtain real results from my “lesson” with him. Below is an image he took during the second part of his lab when they examined the effect of colors. He has loaned me this photo for the purpose of the blog.

Friday’s lab involved using a solar cell and a flashlight to generate electricity. My classmates held a flashlight at differing distances to the solar cell, creating electricity with the light.  According to his findings, the first attempt involved using no light.  It had an average of .11 volts.  After this, four more tests were taken.  They included distances of 1 inch, 2 inches, 3 inches and 4 inches away from the solar cell.  Though he initially predicted that there would be a greater amount of electricity when the light was closer to the solar cell, his results told a different story.  He realized that they needed to have a greater distance in their attempts because the results were simply too close together.  As he explained this to me, I absolutely understood why that would cause him confusing results.  With only a 1-inch increase with each attempt, it would be way too difficult to measure changes in electricity.  He decided to redo his tests with distances of 1 inch, 3 inches, 10 inches and 20 inches.  This time his results made much more sense.  His results of .331 volts, .253 volts, .167volts, and .139 volts demonstrated his hypothesis, and showed that as the distance of the flashlight to the solar cell increased, the voltage level decreased.

After this step, my classmates tested different colored filters on top of the solar cells.  They learned from this that different colors affected the voltages.  My roommate found that a green filter was the weakest voltage, followed by the blue filter, leaving the pink filter with the highest level of electricity.  I was disappointed to miss this lab, as it seems to be a rare occasion where I would’ve known what results I was looking for before I even began my lab.  Like my roommate, my hypothesis would be that the smaller the distance between the flashlight and solar cell, the higher voltage.  I’m truly grateful for my roommate taking the time to write everything down and spend an hour going over it all with me.  Though I missed going through the experiment on a hands on basis, I at least am left with a thorough understanding of every step of the lab, and feel as though I’m not behind the rest of my classmates.

Below, I’ve also included a YouTube clip on Solar Cells, that I found helpful to understand how they work.

Solar Cells Explanation

This past class was spent discovering ways to generate electricity-using flashlights as generators.  Magnets were located inside the flashlight that would move through a magnetic field when being shaken up and down, thereby causing a change in the field, which produced electricity! A simple shake of the wrist garnered enough change to power the flashlight, but after trial and error my partner and I discovered that the bigger the change in the magnetic field, the greater increase of energy for the flashlight/generator.

After first shaking our flashlights to make sure our magnetic was ready to move we connected it with a probe and the NXT adapter. A batter was placed in the robot and a cord connected to the computer to record the levels of energy used.  We took five different sets of data, each in thirty second intervals but we increased the speed (a.k.a. the number of shakes) each session.  Because we had connected it to the computer, we were able to record the data and have it converted onto an excel spreadsheet, shown in the image below.

Though the image above is a little blurry (sadly cellphone cameras don’t do justice when photographing a computer screen), it shows that we began with zero shakes before increasing to fourteen, twenty-one, forty-five, and seventy shakes, respectively.  After highlighting the data and entering “SUMQU” onto the spreadsheet it calculated the total voltage we generated in each session.  Finally we plotted this information onto a graph.  Our results seemed strange at first, because our graph indicated there wasn’t a constant increase of voltage even though we increased the number of shakes each session.  Luckily however, the line on the graph demonstrates that there was a rise in electricity generated, so we completed our lab and recorded our data correctly, as shown in the final image below.

This was another interesting class.  Using items like the flashlight and magnet helped our group actually understand how things like generators work and how they’re powered.  Rather than just reading about it, or hearing about it, we saw hands on (literally) how it worked.  All in all, a pretty interesting way to learn about electricity and energy.

Hydrofracking, known to some as Hydraulic Fracturing, is an economical “hope” to the natural gas campaign.  Oil is expensive, and the world is desperate for a solution.  But what is hydrofracking? Is it environmentally friendly? Will it really save us money? Is it even an ethical process?

When I first heard the term “hydrofracking”, I thought the newscaster had simply made a verbal error.  Up until today, I knew little about it this process other than it was considered by some as the “key” to natural gas.  After looking into the process and effects more closely, I discovered that like many things in the world, its negative problems greatly outweigh its benefits.

The process of hydrofracking is rather complicated, but in the simplest terms, it’s a method of collecting natural gas located in gas shale deposits.  There is some point in the drilling where drilling occurs horizontally rather than the usual vertical method, and sand, chemicals and LOTS of water are used in the drilling process.  There are many chemicals used, such as hydrochloric acid, diesel fuel, benzene, lubricants, and many biocides.  Obviously, with so many chemicals used, toxicity becomes a huge problem.  If the chemicals mix in with the water it could lead to the contamination of drinking water.

Beyond just the negative effects on water, there are severe environmental impacts caused by hydrofracking.  To even begin, all surrounding trees are cut down, and any species living there find themselves without their natural habitat.  Ground water can also be contaminated, and likely includes long term impacts.  As the drill works its way into the ground, it goes directly through the water table underground, thus having a huge effect on our water system. Yet there are also concerns before the drilling even begins.  According to a March, 2011 New York Times article, “Toxic chemicals are also trucked to thousands of wells; road accidents, leaking valves and other mishaps can lead to spills”.

Perhaps hydrofracking is a more economical solution to oil, perhaps it’s even favorable to some politicians hoping to get away from needing anything from the Middle East, however for our environment it’s a dangerous system.  We are already in a global warming crisis; we can’t afford to take the easy road or the cheap road at the cost of our environment.  It’s time to instead oppose this controversial method, and as Gandhi once said, “be the change you wish to see in the world”.

In the video below, actor Mark Ruffalo explains why he opposes Hydrofracking in New York.

Stop hydrofracking in NY!

Sources:

New York Times

Peace Council

Wall Street Journal

Wikipedia

According to Wikipedia, Newton’s second Law of Motion is “the acceleration of a body is parallel and directly proportional to the net force F and inversely proportional to the mass m, i.e., F = ma”.  You might ask yourself, “What does that mean?”  I certainly had no understanding of this before our lab last Monday.  In the lab, we connected robots to our computers, and to a pulley system.  We studied the amount of energy needed to lift weights on the pulley.  The energy source was a fully charged battery. The below image shows the exact pulley system we used.

In the experiment, we altered the amount of weight used on the pulley, and using the Lab View computer program we were able to adjust the power levels to lift the weights, seen in the image below.

We discovered that less weight made the pulley go faster, as did higher power levels when the weight was unchanging.  Likewise, heavier weights and lower power levels slowed it down. After collecting the data, it was transferred to a Microsoft Excel template, shown in the image below.

We then arranged the first four attempts that had the same amount of weight and different power levels, and the last four have different weights but the same power level.  After this, we put it all into several graphs.  My group had difficulty with this step, as some of our information was initially copied incorrectly.  Luckily, our professor came to the rescue and helped us fix the problem and get our graphs working correctly. After examining the graphs, I finally began to understand how our results related to Newton’s second law, and how force and mass affect the amount of energy needed for movement to occur.

In the spring of 2009, President Barack Obama introduced a national program that would raise vehicle mileage by around 30 percent and would cut down on carbon emissions.  He aimed to reduce the need for oil and increase popularity in hybrid cars.   During his proposal, Obama stated, “The status quo is no longer acceptable.  We have done little to increase fuel efficiency of America’s cars and trucks for decades”.  He later argued that the program would save almost 2 billion barrels of oil over the lifetime of new cars.  Though he neglected to state how long this “lifetime” would last, he did say that the average driver could expect to save $2,800 throughout this lifetime.  According to an article published by the Wall Street journal, a senior official for Obama’s administration also added that their goal is to decrease greenhouse gas emissions by close to 100 million tons.

Many predict that in the next several years, Americans should expect hybrids, plug-in hybrids and perhaps even electric vehicles to begin dominating car sales. It’s amazing when one remembers how the major American car dealerships flew to Washington from Detroit to protest the program in 2009.  However since that time General Motors and Chrysler were part of an $80 billion federal bailout, which perhaps made them realize they should jump on board with the government and Obama’s programs.

Most of today’s cars are much smaller than earlier models.  Thanks to major advances in battery technology and electric hybrids, cars are much more fuel efficient, and MPG rates keep going up! According to a consumer reports poll, six of the 10 best-selling cars in America are small or midsize, and one of the top three most popular pickup trucks has a high-mileage six-cylinder engine.

These major advances are positive in so many ways.  They’re helping reduce our carbon footprint, and helping decrease greenhouse gas emissions.  They’re also helping us save money at the gas station.  And they’re showing that together our nation can make a difference.  Car by car, person by person, we can work towards a better future.

Below is an interesting video of Barack Obama discussing the “turn-around” of companies like GM.

President Obama discussing General Motors

Sources:

The New York Times

MSNBC

The Wall Street Journal

Consumer Reports