Science 184 – Phil Sommer – Dr. Shatz

Last week, we finally got a chance to showcase our beautiful solar ovens and complete our experiment as designed in the lab handout. We traded experiments and materials with another group, so each group got a chance to watch an unbiased group perform their experiment. We were given the task of sliding a block of wood across various surfaces, and the resulting information via the LabView Robotics program showed us that different surfaces have different levels of friction, which results in different amounts of energy needed to slide the brick across the surface. This relates to sustainability in that we are probably using up so much more energy everyday than is necessary simply due to the friction of surfaces we use.

 

But enough about the other group, let’s get cookin’:

 

Our experiment went very well, we all thought, although it did not go according to our hypothesis. This is just as well, since it throws into question some of the tenets that we were operating under and also raises new questions about why the experiment went the way it did – since this question-raising is really the purpose of all science experiments, we were not disturbed greatly by the results of our experiment. Here is a brief rundown of what our presentation actually was, as shown from our lab handout:

 

 

Solar Oven Lab Experiment

Angela Bray, Phillip Sommer, Anna Valutkevich

Objective: To construct 2 different solar ovens using the listed materials and measure how effectively solar energy is absorbed in each from a provided light source.

Background: In recent years, the popularity of solar energy has risen, especially with the escalating fuel costs and the efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The invention of the solar oven has provided an environmentally conscious way to cook a wide variety of food using the power of the Sun as the device’s heat source. For many third-world countries with limited access to clean water, the solar oven also offers a solution by sterilizing the water. There are numerous ways to construct a solar cooker – rather than using a pizza box, as many online sources recommend, you will be using cardboard boxes to have a larger cooking area. Given that you only have one hour to complete the experiment, it is recommended that you use a theater light as your heat source, considering the unfortunate variability of sun exposure. Using an oven thermometer, you will measure the temperature inside the cookers as the light source is absorbed, producing the equivalent of solar energy to cook your food of choice.

Materials:

–          4 cardboard boxes (2 medium-sized, 2 approximately 2 inches smaller)

–          Black & white construction paper

–          Aluminum foil

–          Plastic wrap

–          Oven thermometer

–          Bendable stick (glowstick recommended)

–          Powerful light source (theater light recommended for time efficiency)

–          Newspaper

–          Duct tape

–          Optional: food item

Procedure (preferably completed before experiment):

Setup:

1) Cut the larger boxes to make a top cover. Tape the sides to ensure a snug fit.

2) After cutting off the edges of the smaller boxes, line the inside of them with fitted        pieces of construction paper, 1 black (Box 1) and 1 white (Box 2). Tape or glue in place.

3) Place crumpled bunches of newspaper around the sides of the larger boxes and slide     each smaller box between them.

4) Cut a square hole in the covers for the large boxes.

5) For Box 1, leave the cardboard flap attached at the top. To obtain better reflectivity,     bend the cardboard flap into a curve to angle the light back into the box.

6) For Box 2, completely remove the cardboard flap.

7) Stretch a layer of aluminum foil on the underside of the flap from Box 1. Do not use     any aluminum foil for Box 2.

8) Stretch a layer of plastic wrap over the underside of each cover opening. Tape in place.

9) Place the oven thermometer inside Box 1 in a position where it will be easily      readable. If using a food item, place it in the center of the oven’s base.

10) Secure the cover Box 1 and tape the stick to the flap and the side of the box. Angle    the light appropriately at the reflective flap.

Data Collection: Begin with Box 1 by shining the theater light at the foil-covered flap and adjusting it to ensure that the highest amount of energy will be reflected into the absorbent oven. Every 5 minutes, peek inside the oven and measure the temperature displayed on the thermometer. If the temperature is not climbing at an effective rate, further adjust the flap’s angle by moving the supportive stick. Record your measurements in the chart below. After 30 minutes, carefully transfer the oven thermometer to Box 2 and secure the cover. Shine the light directly into Box 2 and record the temperature rise every five minutes. After completing the procedure, allow each oven to cool before dismantling and take caution when handling the light.

Analysis:

1)      Which box gained a higher temperature? What variables did/did not help the boxes absorb energy?

 

2)      Did adjusting the angles of the cover flap produce higher temperature measurements? If so, why do you think this is?

 

3) Would you use one of these to cook your own food at home? Why or why not? Provide logistics to assist your reasoning.

 

 

That is directly copied from our lab handout. In doing the preparation for the experiment, we had concluded in our hypothesis that the solar oven with the black lining and the reflector would not only heat up quicker than the white-lined oven, but also heat up to a higher temperature than the other. We anticipated that the black box would have higher temperature marks across the data collection table than the white box. In the actual doing of the experiment, with all other variables kept constant (including the oven’s proximity and angle to the light source) we found that things do not always go as you had thought they would. Very quickly, the temperature inside the white-lined oven shot up to 100 degrees, and kept climbing for each of the 5 minute marks until finally plateauing at about 150 degrees. Impressed, we were ready for the second box. In contrast to the white oven, the black one with the reflecting panel heated up much slower, and its final highest temperature was only 130 degrees. Still not too shabby for a cardboard box powered only by one light, but much less than we had anticipated. The temperature difference remained relatively constant for each of the 5 minute marks. In analyzing the data, our group and the group who performed the experiment came to the conclusion that the differences between the two sets of data posed a number of problems to our theories regarding solar energy.

If we are to take these results at face value, it would mean that everyone interested in solar cooking should run out and buy a box with white-lining and no reflectors – since this performed better in the experiment. However, good scientists do not accept everything at face value, and our group decided upon reflection and answering our own follow-up questions that perhaps the experiment was fundamentally flawed. The boxes were ostensibly identical, but the black one was two weeks older than the white one. Could this have had something to do with its poor performance in the experiment? They were constructed the same out of the same materials, but human error and the inherent differences between things the marketplace deems “identical” must also be taken into account. Perhaps the white oven had better insulation: this could be true, since there were more of us working more efficiently on the building of that one than the black one. At such a close proximity to a light source, our group pondered the efficacy of the reflector – if the box is already catching direct light, what purpose did the reflector serve?

In the end, our experiment was intended to show the benefits of an oven like Box 1, but instead demonstrated that Box 2 was more effective. We feel this happened as a result of experimental flaw and human error in the construction of the ovens, but our experiment was far from being a waste. Instead, it raises many good questions about solar energy and how best to harness it. Were we to repeat the experiment, I feel it would be wise to revise some aspects. I wonder if the results would have been the same had we used actual solar energy instead of a theater light at close proximity. In the end, though we didn’t authoritatively answer our questions, we did raise even more, and I feel that we learned a great deal about the concepts of solar energy, solar cooking, and perhaps most importantly, generated plenty more unanswered scientific inquiries into the topic. Having sparked our interest, and sill having two operational solar ovens, this summer could be one of scientific discovery for us, not to mention the potential for an all-solar BBQ.

During our scheduled trip to the Museum of Science in Cambridge a few weeks back, my group used the opportunity to furthur explore some of the concepts related to our solar oven idea.

Anna V. and myself stumbled our way through a bunch of exhibits before we finally found a relevant section of the museum. On the bottom floor, we found what looked like a fairly new exhibit dedicated to sustainability. This section was good for us to find because our project relates directly to the concepts of sustainability. In particular, our project relates to solar energy. A small nook of the exhibit was dedicated to solar power. We looked at different examples of solar panels and ways to harvest solar energy (one of which was a box-shape quite similar to the oven we had intended to design). After reading a couple articles, pushing a few buttons, and playing with some experiments clearly designed for students much younger than us, we played with a motor that had a solar panel attached to it. There were three lights facing the motor’s panel, and by setting one of the lights on it, the motor would rotate. With more lights, the motor moved proportionally faster. It is a simple principle, but was useful for the means of our experiment. The way we designed the experiment, it would be best for us to use either multiple light sources or a very powerful light source – this will create more heat energy within the oven than just one small light.

The second important thing we learned from the Museum was that the angle of the panel versus the angle of the light source is important. In a simulated experiment, we recorded different power readings based on different “sun” angles and different panel positions. This showed us that the best light is the hours before and after noon, and gave us an idea of how to shape our oven’s reflective panels so as to maximize its heat-harvesting power.

Having finished all this in about 20 or so minutes, Anna and I wandered aimlessly looking at various things that didn’t really have much to do with sustainability, but were interesting nonetheless. We tested the threshold of our senses in one room, played with geometric bubbles in another, learned that we can recognize bird calls without a visual mapping of the sound waves, and walked through a creepy room of taxidermied animals randomly thrown together for no apparent scientific reason. All in all, it was a good time made even better by the fact that we didn’t need to pay for an adult ticket.

Last class, I was assigned the role of team captain for our final projects. My team members and I, Angela Bray and Anna Valutkevich, threw out idea after idea before settling on a topic for the final project. This project requires us to come up with an experiment that can be demonstrated in front of the class involving some of the principles and theories we have learned about. In an extension of our learning about the power of solar energy, we finally came up with the idea of solar cooking. Solar cooking is a completely green way to make almost any meal. There are many ways to harvest the power of the sun for energy, and likewise, there are many different ways to cook food in solar cookers. They range from pricey, professionally made contraptions that utilize solar panels, to shoeboxes with tin foil. Our project will be made of the latter. For an example of what we’re hoping to make, here are some links to pages that show how to make your own solar cooker:

 

http://www.builditsolar.com/Projects/Educational/NCKidsSolarAct-1.pdf

http://www.ehow.com/how_4929421_make-fast-heating-solar-oven.html

 

This was actually an idea that I had never heard of before. However, it is a common method of cooking in  many parts of the world, and there are a number of different kinds of cookers for different purposes. Solar cooking is actually very common in many places and is used to cook a number of different foods, particularly vegetables, grains, and starches, but can also be used to cook meat, bread, and almost anything that could be cooked in a regular oven. Water can be boiled inside certain solar powered cookers, and milk can be pasteurized. The versatility of these cookers is countered by the fact that they are less convenient and take longer to cook than conventional methods. If the sun is hidden behind clouds, it is predictably harder to use a solar cooker, but not completely impossible. In fact, for many simple meals, a solar cooker can be used to one’s advantage – its very hard to overcook food in a box solar cooker like the one we intend to make. Since the temperature inside remains constant, it is nearly impossible to burn the food. Additionally, it requires no vigilance – unlike cooking on the stove or in the oven, you don’t need to keep checking your food, simply place it in the sunlight and cook.

 

For our experiment, we will demonstrate through an internal thermometer that the temperature in a solar cooker can be comparable to that of a traditional oven, and also demonstrate how different positions relative to the sun and different box setups with various light reflectors can affect cooking times and temperatures. We will also hopefully have enough for everyone to taste some solar food! The big question for us now is not what we should do for our project, but what to put on the menu?

Situated on the Hudson River, in Buchanan, New York, an unsightly power plant produces energy that goes on to power the flashy billboards and flatscreen displays of downtown New York City. This humble little power plant, named the Indian Point Energy Center, is home to two nuclear reactors that contribute up to 30% of New York City and the surrounding area’s total power. That is a tremendous amount of energy! Built in 1962, the plant caused hardly any concerns for most of its history. A lone reactor constituted the whole plant until 1974, when it was deemed unsafe. Two new reactors were built in the 1970s to replace the original one. These two reactors, unorginally named Units 2 and 3, are housed in six-foot thick domes made of concrete to protect against the possibility of meltdown. However, the plant has come under fire from many in the state recently.

 

Of late, the plant’s overall safety has been questioned. A series of small meltdowns and toxic gas escapes in the 2000s and 2010s have made it a concern of many who live in the area, and the isuue is being talked about on a national scale. With memories of Chernobyl in the distant past and memories of Fukushima Daiichi still in the forefront of people’s minds, nuclear safety in New York has become a top priority. Governor Andrew Cuomo is among those who feel that the life of the plant has run its course. He and his administration have vowed not to renew the state’s contract with the site when it expires in 2013 – the plant is simply too old, too dangerous, and startlingly susceptible to terrorist attacks… a top concern, particularly for New Yorkers. Federal regulators have also declared the plant dangerous, and serious work is needed to keep the plant operational if the contract is to be renewed.

 

Many New Yorkers are concerned with the environmental impacts that the faulty plant could have, and few want to see the Hudson River Valley turned into a radioactive wasteland. However, many more New Yorkers are concerned with something much more important to them: their money (what else?). If the plant closes, New Yorkers could see their energy bills skyrocket by as much as 12% or more. There has been no real alternative presented to address the energy shortage that would ensue should the plant close. This dilemma has ensured that the topic will become one of much political and social debate in New York, and the jury is still out on the future of Indian Point. Proposals have been made to streamline the plant and put in place greener technologies such as Wedgewire screens that will allow wildlife in the Hudson not to get caught in the plants cooling water and die a horrible nuclear death. This process will also ensure that contaminated water will not corrode the plant – a problem that has occurred in the past at Indian Point. Hopefully, a solution can be found that can save the economic and energy benefits of the plant without compromising the safety and cleanliness of the Valley.

 

Sources:

http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Indian%20Point%20Nuclear%20Power%20Plant

http://www.safesecurevital.com/#3

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

The field of nuclear fusion is truly a wondrous, exciting field. While the concept itself is now over a century old, humans have yet to harness this incredible power. Most people are familiar with traditional nuclear energy – those looming nuclear reactors that we only hear about when they break down. However, traditional nuclear energy is derived from the splitting of atoms – this process releases a lot of energy and is called nuclear fission. It is the same principle that is at work in the atomic bomb. The nuclear fusion process is actually quite different.

 

 

 

 

To enlighten us, we took a trip to MIT’s fusion research facility to meet Alcator C-Mod Tokamak, a huge, billions of dollars experimental facility in Cambridge. When we were finally let in the building, we received a presentation about the fusion process from an MIT graduate student who was involved with the research. Basically, the fusion process melds together two atoms – the opposite of fission. The energy created from doing something like this is unheard of. A single fusion could power the entire city of Boston. The problem is that it is an incredibly complex process. First, matter needs to get hot. Very, very hot. Temperatures that are only found in the core of the sun hot. To do this, matter in the fusion chamber (which the student giving the presentation informed us was usually a hydrogen isotope) must be heated until it reaches the state of matter known as plasma. At such a high temperature, the atoms break down into a sinewy mix of electrons, protons, and neutrons – a kind of super-heated matter soup.

 

We use plasma in many things – TVs, neon signs, phones – but extracting energy from it is another matter entirely. Using an incredibly strong electromagnetic current, the plasma is trapped running in circles in a tightly wound coil shaped like a hollowed out doughnut – this design is called a “tokamak” and  ensures that the scorching hot plasma will not break its cycle and damage the machine itself. The scientists and students at MIT were hard at work during our visit trying to determine how best to extract energy from this process, using methods that I will not claim to understand in the least, but the site of the actual machine really amazed me. It is located in a huge warehouse, has multiple floors, and tons and tons of electric equipment, sensors, readers, and all manner of contraptions that look like a super-villains lair from a kitschy James Bond flick.

 

As of yet, the fusion process still needs perfecting. However, funding is scheduled to be cut off for the project. Without this funding, the Alcator C-Mod Tokamek will cease to be – and we will cease to be that much closer to harnessing an energy source that has the potential to create energy for all – with no harmful effects to our planet, and could for all intents and purposes solve the energy crisis – indefinitely. Hopefully, this process will continue to be researched and studied. It is my hope that nuclear fusion will happen within my lifetime.

Our class was lucky enough this week to be treated to a presentation by Suffolk’s resident lightning enthusiast, Mr. Tom Vales. In a half hour, Mr. Vales showed our class a number of awesome gadgets that really got our mental motors running.

First, Mr. Vales showed us a number of examples of motors that run without fossil fuels. As he noted, there are many more ways than just burning coal and oil to produce energy. Some of the motors we witnessed were pretty old inventions – some dating back to the 1800s. The fist one he highlighted for us was a Peltier junction: a device that ran a small motor off the energy produced from a hot cup of water and a cold cup of water. To think that we can harness the energy of heat was a novel idea to me, as it is the most chaotic form of energy, but it is energy nonetheless. According to Tom, the energy produced is pretty minimal and this type of motor would probably never be able to power anything big, but he mentioned that it is useful for smaller tasks, such as beverage coolers and other small things inside of cars, etc. The next contraption, called a Stirling motor, was originally used as a substitute for steam engines that had an unfortunate tendency towards explosions. Running off nothing but hot water vapor that turned its pistons, the motor is apparently still used in submarines, valued for its quiet, undetectable energy production.

 

Next, we got to see a Mendocino motor – named after its birthplace in Mendocino, California. This motor ran using electromagnetism, but especially utilized magnetics to create a free-spinning turbine that can turn without even touching the magnets that power it. Mr. Vales showed us how his was powered by light, and when he flipped the switch, the motor began to turn like magic. Last, we got to see a demonstration of the energy that makes your barbecue lighter work: bet you didn’t know you were using the Piezo effect every time you snap your lighter. This effect produces energy by rubbing a metal against quartz or some other kind of rock, producing a spark that ignites the gas within the lighter. Very enLIGHTening.

I thought all of this was very interesting, but what Mr. Vales did next was truly “shocking.” He told us a great deal about Nikola Tesla, the famous inventor. The contraption he’d been hiding for last turned out to be a classic Tesla coil machine. This machine, when turned on, ran electricity through a series of tightly wound copper coils, known as “Tesla coils.” At the top of the machine, where a small metal point peeked out, an electric current about 6 inches in length shot out and made a loud crackling sound like a tiny bolt of lightning. In this way, Tom demonstrated how Tesla was able to power Niagara Falls without wires. He did some very cool stuff with the bolt afterwards, showing how different materials reacted to being electrified. He held tubes up to the bolt that contained gases that were illuminated with neon colors when touched by the bolt. He also showed us some pictures of his inventions at an annual Tesla-fest in NY, where mad scientists from all over gather to show off their gargantuan displays of lightning. The whole presentation was extremely entertaining and highly educational, but it got me really interested in the subject of Tesla and his lightning machines.

Coincidentally, as I was riding the T home from class and reviewing my notes, a passenger next to me noticed and started talking to me about Tesla – as it turns out, there’s Tesla-freaks everywhere! Count me in for the next demonstration Mr. Vales gives.

To most, global warming is an abstract idea that scientists have concluded is the terrible future we have to face up to lest humanity changes its dependence on fossil fuels and other dirty sources of energy. Many people have heard from talking heads like Al Gore or other environmentalists who constantly warm of impending doom if our planet is allowed to heat up any more – the melting of polar ice caps, the ensuing rise in ocean levels, or the horrors of radiation without a viable ozone layer are all key points in many of these speakers’ doomsday scenarios. The thought of these kinds of terrible occurrences is enough to strike fear into the hearts of those listening: surely, after reading Burton Richter’s book, or seeing Al Gore’s movie, or listening to any of the other scientists who are constantly trying to get us to pay attention to this threat, one must see that humanity’s future is very likely going to be tied to global warming. Of course, the concern over global warming varies across the world: in developed countries, it is a clear issue, whereas in poorer, developing nations, barely anyone has heard of it. However, it is clear to anyone who is listening that global warming is a very real threat.

 

Fortunately for energy corporations that burn fossil fuels everyday, their billions of dollars in the bank, and their politician friends, there are plenty of people who aren’t listening. It seems to be an innocent enough impulse: when we hear news or facts that sound undesirable to us, we have an innate tendency to disregard them. There are plenty of people, particularly in the US, who refuse to believe the warnings of pompous scientists and “liberal elites” of all types who want constantly to bring us this issue and shove it down our throats. Who are these people? Why do they deny what most consider fact? And why are they so damn loud and angry about it? To find some answers, one needs only to find their organizations. A simple search for “global warming deniers” reveals a host of organizations that not only don’t believe global warming, but want to debunk all of the science supporting global warming.

These groups range from the loony, “earth is flat anyway” crowd of nonbelievers who have never believed any science, let alone global warming, to more reputable groups of actual scientists who take issue with generally accepted notions. In between these extremes are the vast majority of skeptics, such as the current crop of Republican candidates who have labeled global warming a “myth.” According to a recent Gallup poll conducted in 2010, Americans’ attitudes towards global warming have become increasingly pessimistic. Nearly 48% believe global warming to be exaggerated, 35% say it will never happen (more than double the amount who responded to a similar Gallup poll in 1997). Nearly 67% think it will not pose a serious threat within their lifetimes. Americans are split about 50-50 on whether it is a man-made phenomenon. Additionally, a declining number of Americans think the majority of scientists accept global warming as a theory.

 

Websites like conservative author Peter C. Glover’s offer proof that global warming isn’t real by picking and choosing selective science to support their theories. In doing so, he ad other skeptics are actually doing what they accuse their opponents of doing. A closer look at the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) reveals that its head scientists are all New Zealanders and not involved in climate science either… a little suspect. The Global Warming Petition Project claims the signatures of over 31,000 scientists, but only 39 of the signers are climatologists: the vast majority are physicists or engineers: not the kind of people that I would think to be authorities on climate studies.

While it is impossible to generalize about any group of people, and doing so is often futile and foolish, it seems as though there is simply a level of denial among global warming skeptics that allows people with vested interests in the fossil fuel industry and the outer fringe of science to share their views. As long as someone is willing to believe something, that thing is true, at least to those who believe it. The difficulty for the climate change/green movement going forward may be to reach out to the growing numbers of nonbelievers – not with gloom and doom, but with an open mind and an understanding of the pitfalls of being too preachy.

Sources:

http://www.globalwarminghysteria.com/ten-myths-of-global-warming/

http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=280

http://www.petitionproject.org/qualifications_of_signers.php

http://www.gallup.com/poll/117772/Awareness-Opinions-Global-Warming-Vary-Worldwide.aspx

http://www.gallup.com/poll/126560/americans-global-warming-concerns-continue-drop.aspx

The uproar that surrounded the Solyndra Company, a California-based manufacturer of solar panels and other kinds of solar-powered technologies, has largely died off by now. During the height of the “scandal” last year, the President and his administration had to face a nation angry with the lack of oversight and forethought put into the process of loaning millions of taxpayer dollars to a company that would soon go belly-up. What could make a company that accepted $535 million dollars from the government to produce an exciting new technology go bankrupt in so short a time? It is certainly a treacherous path to the truth of the matter, particularly when trying to sift through the economic and political turmoil in its wake. In an attempt to do this, I will explain the best I can what I know of the matter.

Shortly after taking office, President Obama’s administration made government subsidies for “green” energy companies, like Solyndra, a priority. After much-publicized touting by the administration, including a visit by the President himself to the Solyndra manufacturing plant, the federal government agreed to loan Solyndra $535 million in taxpayer money. Likely, this would have caused no problems had the company not floundered shortly after. The firestorm that erupted after the company’s bankruptcy left the green industry reeling and the Obama administration with egg on their collective face. Republicans were quick to leap on the story, insinuating that it was all an orchestrated move of blatant cronyism – a case that has not been helped by Solyndra’s alleged ties to the administration’s higher-ups. Energy Secretary Steven Chu has come under a lot of fire by Republicans, and even many Democrats for his personal investment in and bumbling handling of the Solyndra situation.

When Solyndra closed its doors and laid off its 1,100 employees last year, the deal that had been held up as a proud example of green-government blew up in the American media. Republicans and Fox News were quick to point out the “grotesque cronyism” that could mean only an impeachment for Obama. Others, such as Rep. Newt Gingrich and Rep. Cliff Stearns, called for an even-more extreme position against the green energy industry itself. Stearns used his position as Energy subcommittee chairman to deride renewable energy and said that this incident proved “that green energy isn’t going to be the solution.”

Aside from all the legislative backstabbing and mumbo-jumbo, the Solndra scanal still is a disconcerting incident for Americans and the world. It means that there are still very big problems with the government subsidy program, and some of these problems may be rooted in intrinsic cronyism. This being said, Solyndra is the exception, not the rule. The government recently passed on $8 billion to nuclear plant development in the South and other solar companies like First Solar and SunPower are doing just fine with their loan money. Many have placed the blame on China, for giving their solar industry bigger subsidies. While it is true they gave more insubsidies, America actually holds a trade surplus with China in solar technologies – one of the very few areas that China actually buys more of our stuff than we do of theirs.

According to authorities in the marketplace, what really ruined Solyndra was just a simple change in the market that no one had really anticipated. Solyndra’s use of non-silicon technologies seemed smart and efficient: it was cheaper to make solar panels without silicon. Then, silicon prices tumbled, making all of Solyndra’s research and development next-to useless. Within months, the company was out of business. The result of bad economic forecasting.

So what are we, the American people, to take from this disaster of economic proportions? Certainly, our attitude should one of anger with our government for backdoor cronyism, one of disgust with politicians for trying to use this a leverage against a proven industry, and one of diligence towards green technology. Perhaps Jon Stewart said it right on his program The Daily Show: mentioning the ludicrous uproar that happened, Stewart said that we shouldn’t use this as a reason to discredit all green energy across the board, “But, if in, let’s say, 1936 you spoke about the growing importance of air travel in front of, I don’t know, the Hindenberg, you’d be right about the future of air travel — but you’d still be on f—-g fire!”

 

Sources:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/five-myths-about-the-solyndra-collapse/2011/09/14/gIQAfkyvRK_blog.html

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2011/09/17/solyndra-yes-it-was-possible-to-see-this-failure-coming/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/15/jon-stewart-obama-solyndra-scandal-video_n_965474.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/16/solyndra-scandal-emails-energy-department_n_1097701.html

On our make-up class day, at 9:30 in the morning, my group began experimenting once again with NXT and the LabView program. This time, our purpose was to look at light energy. Much has been made of the sustainable possibilities of solar energy as a totally green, efficient alternative to fossil fuels. To better understand the concepts at work in solar energy, we took to the lab.

It was discovered not so very long ago that light is actually energy, as well as a particle. This weird phenomenon of light has led to light particles as being referred to as “photons.” Most of the photons that we would use for energy to power our cities and machines would come from the sun, if the technology became more developed. However, on the cloudy Friday in Archer where we conducted the experiment, sun-photons were simply not an option. We relied on photons from a weak flashlight to generate energy, and though the magnitude of the energy was nowhere near what the sun could have provided, at least the flashlight served to illustrate the basic concepts of solar energy.

The experiment was two-fold: in part one, our group moved the flashlight various distances from the solar cell connected to LabView. This mini-solar cell was our “receptor,” measuring how much energy we were providing it with from the flashlight every 30 seconds. Our hypothesis was that the closer the flashlight was to the solar cell, the greater the energy would be. This proved sort of right, as a few of our trials didn’t support this theory. Likely the result of human error anyway, we threw out the suspect data and ended up with the following results: with no light, there is no energy. At 1 inch away from the panel, the flashlight provided 0.331V, and decreased the further away we shone the flashlight. We made a chart and graph in Excel to show this trend:

 

The second part of the experiment required us to keep the flashlight at a constant distance from the cell, and place over the light a colored filter. Using three different color filters, placed 2 inches away from the cell, we measured what effect this had on the energy produced. Here is a chart of our findings.

 

It would seem that these filters have the ability to filter out certain wavelengths of the visible spectrum. Allowing only one portion of the visible spectrum through, we saw which colors had higher wavelengths and therefore more energy than others. Green was the weakest, blue was stronger and the pink-ish magenta filter gave the most energy. This makes sense and is in keeping with our knowledge of the visible spectrum.

Hydrofracking. A strange word, and it describes an even more bizarre process that is currently the trend in the energy world in America. To understand hydrofracking, one must understand what the process is used for and why it has suddenly become a sensational issue in this country.

Most of America’s domestic energy comes from coal power – an abundant natural resource here that has caused plenty of controversy on its own. The vast majority of our total energy, however, comes from foreign oil depositories, however. In recent years, there has been a concerted effort to reduce the amount of foreign oil our country is dependent on. Enter “natural gas.” Natural gas comes from within the earth, and is lighter, less dense, and less harmful to the environment to refine than traditional gasoline. The problem with natural gas is that much of it is stored within rock, sand, and ground – not exactly like gasoline, which is usually contained in ground wells that are more easily accessible.

Most of the natural gas is stored within special rock formations called shale. Shale is not the strongest rock in the world – in fact, it is one of the weakest types of rock. This makes it easier to access than if the gas were stored within much stronger rocks. The shale is oftentimes buried deep within the earth, so energy corporations developed technologies that use giant drills to reach down into the earth and access the shale. Via these drill holes, a potent mixture of sand, water, and chemicals is blasted against the soft shale, causing it to break up. Here is a video to demonstrate exactly how the process works:

 

 

 

 

 

After the shale has been cracked, the pressure from the water-sand mixture continues to crack the shale, releasing the gas contained within. As with any other kind of energy, the “hydrofracking” process has come under fire from many elements of the population. In New York, many citizens have joined petitions to stop the hydrofracking happening in their state. The concerns of the people are varied, but mostly are focused on hydrofracking’s environmental impacts. Since a heady mix of chemicals, water, salt, and sand is being injected directly into the ground, many are concerned with the unknown effects on drinking water. For a list of the chemicals in a typical hydrofracking mixture, here is a list of them and what their effects are, as well as where else we use these chemicals day-to-day.

FRACTURING INGREDIENTS

Product	Purpose	Downhole Result	Other Common Uses*
Water and Sand: ~ 98%
Water	Expand the fracture and deliver sand	Some stays in formation, while the remainder returns with natural formation water as produced water (actual amounts returned vary from well to well)	Landscaping and manufacturing
Sand (Proppant)	Allows the fractures to remain open so that the natural gas and oil can escape	Stays in formation, embedded in fractures (used to “prop” fractures open)	Drinking water filtration, play sand, concrete and brick mortar
Other Additives: ~ 2%
Acid	Helps dissolve minerals and initiate cracks in the rock	Reacts with minerals present in the formation to create salts, water and carbon dioxide (neutralized)	Swimming pool chemicals and cleaners
Anti-bacterial Agent	Eliminates bacteria in the water that produces corrosive byproducts	Reacts with micro-organisms that may be present in the treatment fluid and formation; these micro-organisms break down the product with a small amount of the product returning in the produced water	Disinfectant; sterilizer for medical and dental equipment
Breaker	Allows a delayed breakdown of the gel	Reacts with the crosslinker and gel once in the formation, making it easier for the fluid to flow to the borehole; this reaction produces ammonia and sulfate salts, which are returned to the surface in produced water	Hair colorings, as a disinfectant, and in the manufacture of common household plastics
Clay stabilizer	Prevents formation clays from swelling	Reacts with clays in the formation through a sodium-potassium ion exchange; this reaction results in sodium chloride (table salt), which is returned to the surface in produced water	Low-sodium table salt substitutes, medicines and IV fluids
Corrosion inhibitor	Prevents corrosion of the pipe	Bonds to metal surfaces, such as pipe, downhole; any remaining product that is not bonded is broken down by micro-organisms and consumed or returned to the surface in the produced water	Pharmaceuticals, acrylic fibers and plastics
Crosslinker	Maintains fluid viscosity as temperature increases	Combines with the breaker in the formation to create salts that are returned to the surface with the produced water	Laundry detergents, hand soaps and cosmetics
Friction reducer	“Slicks” the water to minimize friction	Remains in the formation where temperature and exposure to the breaker allows it to be broken down and consumed by naturally occurring micro-organisms; a small amount returns to the surface with the produced water	Cosmetics including hair, make-up, nail and skin products
Gelling agent	Thickens the water to suspend the sand	Combines with the breaker in the formation, making it easier for the fluid to flow to the borehole and return to the surface in the produced water	Cosmetics, baked goods, ice cream, toothpastes, sauces and salad dressings
Iron control	Prevents precipitation of metal in the pipe	Reacts with minerals in the formation to create simple salts, carbon dioxide and water, all of which are returned to the surface in the produced water	Food additives; food and beverages; lemon juice
pH Adjusting Agent	Maintains the effectiveness of other components, such as crosslinkers	Reacts with acidic agents in the treatment fluid to maintain a neutral (non-acidic, non-alkaline) pH; this reaction results in mineral salts, water and carbon dioxide — a portion of each is returned to the surface in the produced water	Laundry detergents, soap, water softeners and dishwasher detergents
Scale inhibitor	Prevents scale deposits downhole and in surface equipment	Attaches to the formation downhole with the majority of the product returning to the surface with the produced water, while the remaining amount reacts with micro-organisms that break down and consume it	Household cleansers, de-icers, paints and caulks
Surfactant	Increases the viscosity of the fracture fluid	Returns to the surface in the produced water, but in some formations it may enter the natural gas stream and return in the produced natural gas	Glass cleaners, multi-surface cleansers, antiperspirants, deodorants and hair colors

*Other common uses of the product may not be in the same quantity or concentration.​

 

Also of concern to environmentalists is the potential for radioactive damage, since the kind of shale used in hydrofracking is known to be unstable and radioactive, not to mention objections regarding the legal impact of the process – who is responsible for damage that occurs thousands of feet below the surface of the earth? Many demonstrators have shown their displeasure at the process, and many more are likely to join the cause. The “cleanest burning fossil fuel” may have some dirtier consequences.

 

Sources:

1. http://www.chevron.com/deliveringenergy/naturalgas/shalegas/?gclid=CP3Xqv-Lra4CFScRNAodHFoZQA

2. http://www.hydraulicfracturing.com/Fracturing-Ingredients/Pages/information.aspx

3. http://www.citizenscampaign.org/campaigns/hydro-fracking.asp