During my group’s first project brainstorming session we came up with a few different experiment ideas, but liked the idea of working with electricity.  After conducting some research, we decided on making a DIY battery that could be used to power a small appliance of some sort.

We explored different ways of making a homemade battery and came across two methods that caught our attention.  The first method would be completing a circuit through using an ice tray, copper wire, galvanized nails, and distilled vinegar.  We liked this idea but after putting more thought into it we came to the conclusion that it would be somewhat difficult to collect accurate and reliable data.  Although we could measure the electric potential of this set up, we wouldn’t really have any other data to compare to.  This lack of data is crucial when attempting to support a hypothesis so we decided to pass on this idea.

The second method we liked was to complete a circuit through using fruit, copper and zinc nails.  This method was more appealing to us because it was more versatile.  We decided to commit to this idea because through using this method we would be able measure the electric potential of multiple different fruits and vegetables and their acidities.  We can compare all of this data to get an accurate idea of what fruit generate the most electrical output and why.  This data would help provide a more well rounded conclusion to support our hypothesis compared to the lack of data provided by the ice tray battery.  Although there are several different appliances that we could power via fruit for the experiment, we still haven’t entirely decided on what we are going to use.

The Keystone XL pipeline was designed to transport oil-sand petroleum across the United States, from Canada to the Gulf Coast.  The pipeline was initially proposed in 2005 and applied to the State Department for a construction permit in 2008.  Arguments for the pipeline were centralized around the economic benefits, while arguments against revolved around concerns about the environment.

Environmentalists are concerned with potential leaks of the Keystone XL.  It turns out that a leak in a pipeline transporting oil-sand petroleum is much more hazardous to the environment compared to a leak in a standard oil pipeline.  Another factor that environmentalists noted was that the production of oil-sand petroleum generates 17% more greenhouse gases than conventional oil.  In a time when attention to climate change is becoming more abundant, the economic benefits of the Keystone XL pipeline don’t seem to outweigh the potential threatening impact on the environment.    

The United States consumes more oil than is domestically produced, which means we have to import the remaining demand from another country.  As of now, oil is imported from overseas primarily from the Middle East.  The arguments made by individuals who support the Keystone XL pipeline all regard economic stimulus.  If the Keystone XL pipeline was constructed, it would allow us to import from Canada.  Importing oil from a neighboring country would strengthen trade relations and economic ties.  Also, the State Department estimated that the massive two year project would create a total of 42,000 temporary jobs nationwide while contributing $3.4 billion to the US economy.   

After seven years of controversial debate, the Obama Administration has recently rejected the request to construct the Keystone XL pipeline on November 6, 2015.  Perhaps if the idea for the pipeline was proposed a few decades ago when less people were convinced that global warming was a reality, the pipeline would have been constructed.  Building a pipeline that promotes the use of a fossil fuel would not be a step in the right direction for the United States.  The US is one of the largest greenhouse gas emitters in the world, so the country should have its focus on cleaner sources of energy rather than fossil fuels.

The MIT Lab tour consisted of a lecture and the tour of MIT’s research nuclear reactor.  When we got to MIT for the lab tour the first thing we did was attend a lecture.

The lecture gave us a background of the history of MIT’s nuclear reactor facility as well as how the reactor worked and the experiments that have been conducted.  An interesting part of the lecture was learning more about the process of fission, which is the reaction that produces the energy in nuclear reaction.  In basic terms, fission is the process of splitting an atom.  Uranium is an unstable atom.  In a nuclear reactor neurons are shot at uranium atoms and when they collide the uranium atom splits, releasing energy and more neurons.  These neutrons hit other uranium atoms and the process continues in a chain reaction.  Since uranium has the characteristic of being very efficient the fuel can continue this reaction for days on end.  I believe at the lecture we were told that the longest period of time that the reactor ran continuously was around 2 months.  

Information on MIT’s nuclear reactor website reveals interesting experiments that were conducted through their reactor.  Examples of experiments that MIT is involved in include areas in fuel research, trace element analysis, isotope production, and neutron scattering.

Unfortunately, after viewing the lecture I was unable to go on the tour of the reactor.  Background screening are conducted to be granted access to go on the tour due to MIT’s policy because of their affiliation with government research.  Although I provided them the necessary information prior to going to MIT, they wouldn’t accept any of the multiple forms of identification I provided since they didn’t include my date of birth.

The film entitled “Pandora’s Promise” attempts to answer the complicated question, ‘how do we continue to power modern civilization without destroying it?’.  Pandora Promise provides detailed insight into the controversial debate of nuclear power, a clean source of energy with potential to be extremely efficient.

Most individuals who oppose nuclear energy, primarily environmentalists, often argue that nuclear energy is a lurking danger.  Their concerns with nuclear energy revolve around potential accidents, radiation levels, waste products, and the development of nuclear weapons.  The problem with these concerns is that they are not strong arguments when it comes to forming a perspective about nuclear energy, especially when considering the efficiency potential of this energy source.

Antinuclear individuals who are anxious about potential accidents at a nuclear power plant flaunt unrealistic dangers. The fact is, there have been very limited serious/major accidents at nuclear facilities.  In the past 60 years, there has been only 33 recorded accidents at nuclear facilities many which were small resulting in few consequences.  Two examples of serious accidents include the incidents that occurred at nuclear facilities in  Fukushima, Japan and Chernobyl, Ukraine, 1986.  The cause of both of these accidents were due to a severe natural disaster and design flaws.  The Fukushima accident occurred after Japan was hit with an earthquake and two tsunamis, which destroyed electrical equipment that regulated the reactor causing the core to melt.  Even though the facility was surrounded by a wall to prevent damage from tsunamis, it was not tall enough.  The accident that happened Chernobyl was because of a design flaw in the reactor accompanied by major mistakes made by the plant operators.  With proper design and procedure, nuclear energy can be easily controlled and a very safe source of energy.  As exemplified by France and its dedication to nuclear energy.

Nuclear reactors are powered by uranium, a very heavy metal found in Earth’s crust.  Enriched uranium has the ability to be extremely energy efficient.  In fact, one pound of highly enriched uranium can provide the same amount of energy as one million gallons of gasoline.  Also, one pound of uranium provides one million more times energy than a pound of coal.  

This film was very interesting and provided great insight on the debate of nuclear energy.  The facts that backed up arguments that were pro-nuclear energy were convincing and helped me develop a better understanding of how nuclear energy is produced.  Prior to watching this film I didn’t realize the efficiency of nuclear energy, but after watching it I’m convinced more countries should be involved in nuclear energy in order to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions and decelerate the effects of climate change.

The purpose of the Solar Cell Experiment was to demonstrate how light intensity directly relates to the voltage can be generated through a solar cell.  We also used several colored filters to discover the relationship between wavelengths of light and the voltages generated.  In this experiment, we used one solar cell one voltage probe, one NXT adaptor, NXT with light sensor, one light source, ruler, and colored film filters.

To demonstrate the relationship between light intensity and voltage produced, we took 30 second voltage readings with the light source 5 different distances away from the solar cell.  We measured the voltage at 0 cm, 1 cm, 2 cm, 4 cm, and 8 cm.  Each time we moved the light source further away from the solar cell a smaller voltage was produced, as seen in the data.

To demonstrate the relation between different wavelengths and voltages generated, we held the light source at a constant distance of 2 cm away from the solar cell and took four different voltage readings when using four different color filters.  The color filters that we used were pink, orange, black, and blue.  The filters changed the wavelengths of the light therefore changing the voltage that could have been produced.

 

Light Intensity Average Voltage at:

 

0 cm – 0.5696 volts

 

1 cm – 0.5205 volts

 

2 cm – 0.5039 volts

 

4 cm – 0.4857 volts

 

8 cm – 0.4723 volts

 

Different Wavelength Average Voltage

 

Pink – 0.5321 volts

 

Orange – 0.5088 volts

 

Black – 0.4857 volts

 

Blue – 0.4843 volts

Solar energy is a renewable energy source that has grown in popularity in recent years because of emerging technologies and the increasing concern about greenhouse gas emissions and its effect on the environment.  The energy offered by the sun is harnessed through the use of photovoltaic devices, which transfers direct sunlight into electricity.  Many countries have began to take initiative through new and innovative solar projects to help wean the population from relying and fossil fuels as an energy resource.

Germany is currently the leading country in solar power today.  In 2014, more than half of Germany’s electricity demand was satisfied by solar energy, which was approximately 23.1 gigawatts of power.  What has helped German hit this milestone was the Renewable Energy Sources Act which was passed in 1991.  This act promotes long term investment in electrical generation through the use of renewable energy sources and was placed to lessen Germany’s impact on the environment, while make energy more affordable for citizens.  The biggest challenge in becoming the top solar energy producer was in the cost of implementing photovoltaic devices.  With the comfort of the solar energy market being backed by the government, utility companies and investors were more than willing to commit to long term investments in solar energy.  Strong support from the population and laws placed by the government has allowed the growth rate of solar energy in Germany to nearly triple in the last decade.  Other countries have began to follow Germany’s footsteps in investing in solar power.  Geological location can play an influencing role in which countries choose to invest in solar power.  The closer to the equator, the more hours of direct sunlight that country experienced in a given year.  One country that is taking advantage of it geographical location to help sustain growing energy needs is India.

India is a very suitable country for solar power considering the size of the subcontinent and the amount of sunlight the receive in a year.  Their government has recently decided to heavily invest in solar energy.   India’s plan to grow their solar energy industry by 250% would help address a lack of electricity to buildings and homes and would significantly shrink the country’s carbon footprint.  As a developing country with a large population, millions of individuals are left without access to electricity which can make simple day-to-day activities difficult once the sun goes down.  Power cuts and outages are common in India due to it’s current energy grid which isn’t the most efficient.  These frequent power cuts are not a positive influence on India’s rapidly growing economy.  India’s plan to invest more in solar energy would have a positive economic impact, considering it would drop the prices of electricity, and it would provide electricity to areas which lack it.  The United States also has plans for becoming more energy efficient through the use of renewable energy, especially solar energy.

The United States has been getting more involved with solar energy with the help of the  President’s Climate Action Plan.  Since 2009, the Department of Interior has approved more than 25 utility scale solar facilities.  During the president’s first term, he was able to double electrical generation from renewable resources and plans double it again by 2030.  With roughly $18 billion in new investments for solar technology, the US plans to increase solar energy by 30%.  Government supported programs have significantly helped cut costs of installing solar panels, but is set to expire at the end of next year.  These programs provided a 33% investment tax credit, but when this expires the cost burden will be entirely on developers and consumers until new programs are put in place.  Although renewable energy only accounts for about 8% of the energy sector, the US has made decent progress in investing in cleaner energy.

On a Friday afternoon in March of 2011, Japan was hit  by a magnitude 9.0 earthquake.  Following the Earthquake, the coast line was hit with two tsunamis.  Not only did this massive natural disaster claim the lives of tens of thousands and cause extensive damage to buildings and homes, it caused a nuclear accident.  At the time, 11 reactors were operating at four different power plants.  Although the powerplants were designed to sustain  and shut down during earthquakes and didn’t endure too much damage from the magnitude 9.0, the tsunamis caused substantial damage.

The tsunamis submerged and and damaged the equipment that cooled the three Fukushima Daiichi reactors, which was located in the basement of the facilities, and caused a blackout at the power plant.  During the next few days the cores of the three reactors melted due to the lack of a cooling system.  Contaminated water leaked from the damaged units and this furthered people’s concerns.  Obstructions in the roads caused by the natural disasters made it difficult for individuals to respond to the emergency.  When these plants were being constructed, tsunamis were acquainted for when it came to construction.  They purposely built the plants 10 meters above sea level to prevent such accidents from happening, but in this case 10 meters wasn’t enough.

The same night of the incident, a Nuclear Emergency was declared followed by an evacuation of the area.  Over 100,000 people were evacuated in total due to government nervousness; they wanted to try their best to ensure public safety.  There were no written reports of deaths or cases of radiation sickness from the nuclear accident.  This incident made Japan uneasy about nuclear energy for a few years.  They stopped 48 plants from continuing production until the Fukushima Daiichi disaster was resolved. But this incident didn’t keep Japan from being engaged in nuclear energy.

Japan has recently approved upgrades to its national energy strategy.  Despite the accident, his new energy strategy puts nuclear energy in the forefront of energy sources.  While idling plants will begin to run again, new plants will be implemented into the energy grid.  Japan plans on following the footstep of France and becoming more environmentally friendly by cutting mass amounts of greenhouse gasses.  Considering nuclear energy is nearly emission free, it is the right step to a cleaner future.

Nuclear energy technologies were primarily developed during World War II, but the first technology appeared in 1895. Nuclear power plants generate electricity through nuclear reaction and have been around since 1956.

At nuclear plants, reactors produce and control energy that is acquired through the splitting of uranium atoms and combining atom.  These processes called fission and fusion, respectively.  This is a much cleaner and efficient way of producing electricity when compared to coal plants.  Nuclear reactors are powered by uranium, a very heavy metal found in Earth’s crust.  Enriched uranium has the ability to be extremely energy efficient.  In fact, one pound of highly enriched uranium can provide the same amount of energy as one million gallons of gasoline.  Also, one pound of uranium provides one million more times energy than a pound of coal.  Nuclear power plants provide approximately 17% of the world’s electricity, and 20% of the U.S. energy.  France is heavily involved in nuclear energy and derives nearly 75% of its electricity from nuclear reaction.

Greenhouse gases are not a byproduct of nuclear reaction.  According to reports in 2014 nuclear energy facilities prevented 595 million metric tons of C02 emissions, 1 million short tons of sulfur dioxide, and 0.48 million short tons of nitrogen oxide which would have been polluted the atmosphere if electric generation was done by coal plants and combined-cycle plants.

Although nuclear power plants don’t emit greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, they do generate radioactive byproduct.  Proper disposal of radioactive waste is a highly debated topic because safely disposing this byproduct is difficult.  Between 1940 and 1970 most radioactive waste was dumped into the ocean because the nuclear facilities were not entirely sure what to do with it.  They discovered dumping the waste into the ocean was not good for the environment, so today the waste is buried deep underground where the radioactivity will slowly decay.  Yucca Mountain in Nevada was proposed as the nation’s repository for nuclear waste but the plan was cancelled in 2011 by the Obama Administration.   Since the waste is buried so deep, it doesn’t contaminate underground water resources or any living organisms.  With nearly 100 nuclear facilities in 30 different states in the U.S., a lot of radioactive waste is produced.  Storing the waste in personal facilities can also be done instead of burying it.  Nuclear energy is a very clean energy source which can be achieved through the use complex technology.  More countries should participate in generating electricity through nuclear energy to cut greenhouse gas emissions.  

After reviewing the President’s Climate Action Place for 2014, which was released in June of 2013, there were three specific initiatives from the President’s Climate Action Plan that I found interesting.  These three specific initiatives revolved around unlocking long-term investment in clean energy innovation, reducing energy bills for American families and businesses, and reducing methane emissions.

The first interesting initiative is the President’s plan for long-term investment in clean energy innovation.  The Obama administration is committed to clean energy innovation through efforts in clean energy research, development, and deployment.  The proposed budget plans to increase funding for clean energy technology in all agencies by 30%.  The fiscal year 2014 budget wanted to invest $8 billion into clean energy innovation.  The purpose of this investment is to help reduce greenhouse gas emission in the future by attempting to discover more efficient uses of energy that can help reach financial and policy goals.  Considering the United States is one of the biggest greenhouse gas emitters this would be a step in the right direction to a cleaner future.  Long-term investment in clean energy is very important to ensure energy efficiency in future years.  The Administration planned on conducting a Quadrennial Energy Review which will be led by the White House Domestic Policy Council and Office of Science and Technology Policy.  This would be the first review of its kind and it would provide insightful information on infrastructure challenges, risks and opportunities for the United States to consider when it comes to increasing energy efficiency.

Another interesting initiative in the President’s Climate Action Plan was to cut energy bills through more efficient uses of energy. The President has set a goal to double energy efficiency by 2030 in comparison to energy efficiency in 2010.  The Obama Administration planned on taking a wide variety of steps towards increasing energy efficiency, especially because energy efficiency is a cost-effective ways to help American families and business save money.  It is evident how committed the President is to completing this goal, for example during his first term, Department of Energy and the Department of Housing and Urban Development completed efficiency upgrades in more than one million homes.  These upgrades helped cut hundreds of dollars out of energy bills by the end of the first year and save a lot of energy from being wasted.  Another way the President’s Administration is attempting to reduce energy bills is through setting efficiency standards for appliances and federal buildings.  Setting such standards would waste less energy, therefore save money.  Doubling energy efficiency by 2030 would be a huge step for the United States.

The last interesting initiative was the President’s plan was to reduce methane emissions.  To my surprise, it turns out that methane has a global warming potential that is more than 20 times greater than carbon dioxide.  Although since 1990, the emissions of methane have fallen by 8%, the gas contributes to about 9% of the United State’s greenhouse gas emissions.  Methane emissions are most prevalent in coal mines, landfills, agriculture, and oil and gas development.  Innovators have recently created a devices called ‘methane digesters’, which can safely and efficiently remove the gas from the air.  The Administration has attempted to increase the adoption of methane digesters through offering loans and other forms of assistance.  Through working with state governments and private sectors, the Obama administration plans on reducing emissions and increasing energy efficiency throughout multiple sectors.

The Museum of Science offered a number of exhibits that correlate with the material that has been covered in class, such as different types of energy and efficiency.  The exhibits that we visited included Catching the Wind, Energized, and Investigate.  The exhibits offered valuable information and often had hands on activities, which made the exhibits more interesting.

The first exhibit that we visited was called Energized.  This exhibit focused on the United States’ energy consumption and sources of renewable energy.  Visitors are informed of the negative side effects of our current primary sources of energy, such as oil, gas, and coal, while providing extensive information and how our population can be more energy efficient.  The exhibit stressed the fact our reserves of oil, gas, and coal are limited; and that energy from sunlight, wind, water, and other self-replenishing resources can and should be utilized in order to generate cleaner energy that would have fewer negative side effects on the environment.  Many interactive activities were integrated into the exhibit allowing visitors to learn hands-on.

The Catching the Wind exhibit was a sub-exhibit of Energized and covered the topic of wind energy and wind turbines.  The exhibit primarily included information about how wind turbines generate electricity, what types of factors have to be considered when putting up a turbine, and what tradeoffs are made when using cleaner energy.  This exhibit gave visitors an insight on the growing popularity of wind energy and how it is appearing more frequently in our communities.  One interesting thing that I learned from this exhibit was that the Museum of Science actually has five types of small, residential turbines on the roof of the building to help improve the energy efficiency of the building.  The museum also had equipment that allowed visitors to see how much energy their wind turbines were generating.

The last exhibit was called Investigate.  This exhibit included a variety of self-conducting experiments and information about the importance of recycling.  The exhibit was set up like a house where each room had different activities.  The kitchen had experiments regarding buoyancy; the bathroom taught you how a toilet works; the garage had a self conducting experiment with pressure, and lastly the front yard explored recycling and taught visitors what different materials could be recycled and reused as, which was the most interesting part of the exhibit.  It was interesting to learn that aluminum cans can be recycled into window frames, rain gutters, and new cans.  Another interesting fact was that milk bottles and other high-density polyethylene (HDPE #2) plastics can be recycled into plastic decking and outdoor furniture.

Overall, the trip to the Museum of Science was a positive experience.  The last time I had visited the museum I was probably in elementary school so it was interesting to go back many years later.  The exhibits were very informative offering insightful and interesting material that could be understood by people of all ages.