A full semester of science has concluded. Our last assignment tasked us with performing an experiment that our peers created. My team joined forces with Rebecca Bernardo’s team; we gave them our lab handout (available here) and our constructed wind turbine and I sent Rebecca and most of her team off with Ashley to perform our experiment.

This left Phil in charge of showing us the ropes of Rebecca’s team’s experiment. It was created in order to test how different capacitors store solar energy from a flashlight. He showed us how to work the circuit board and told us about the different capacitors. The Labview program that we would be using had already been set up by Professor Shatz (thank you for that!). We performed 6 trials (2 for each of the 3 capacitors) and recorded our data. Our findings concluded that the highest capacity capacitor was most efficient in storing energy from solar power.

Rebecca’s team’s lab sheet included questions about which form of renewable/green energy (solar or wind) was more efficient. After studying wind energy for the past couple weeks I have to vouch for wind, simply because the amount of power that can be generated is much higher than solar.

Working with my group on another group’s project was a collaborative and simple experience. Ashley helped Rebecca’s team by showing them how the turbine worked and guiding them along in their testing. Overall everything went smoothly, and we bid farewell to Sci-184 on a good note.

Wind Energy Powerpoint

Or more like a scientist on a tour of CERN am I right?! Whatever floats your boat. Or more appropriately, whatever powers your hydroelectric waterwheel! Ha!

Okay I’m done.

Our trip to the Boston Museum of science was a very helpful and enlightening experience that gave us a better appreciation and understanding of many energy-related concepts.

To name a few: solar panels and how they function, how to best optimize their efficiency; wind power and how it works and the different types of wind turbines available; hydroelectric technologies and how they function; bio-fuels (even from something as cartoonish as cow manure).

The displays set up were all incredibly informational and helped our group figure out that we were absolutely going to do a presentation and experiment of wind power. The capabilities and showiness of wind really make it an ideal form of green energy for us to showcase.

The proper functioning of the United States power grid is the most important yet least thought about pieces of our unseen infrastructure puzzle. If we were without the constant supply of electricity that we seem to take for granted, our civilization would be an entirely different place. People rarely think about the mind boggling amount of electricity that is used every year, and how much is required to keep the country running at the rate it does. “The U.S. Department of Energy estimates the average home uses about 11,000 kilowatt-hours (kWh) annually.” The majority of electricity used in the country is used during what is known as “peak hours.” These hours are in the afternoon and early evening.

Demand Response is an intelligent and hassle-free way for the average electricity consumer to be smarter about the amount of power they use in a day. By reducing the amount of power that is available during non-peak hours, consumers can rest assured that they aren’t being charged for electricity when they are, in all probability, not really using it. This is also beneficial to the macro-scale of the US power grid, as less kilowatts need to be produced to power homes, and a little savings over the entire scale of the country can make some huge differences in total.

The other aspect of demand response technology that makes good rational sense is known as “dynamic pricing.” To explain dynamic pricing we can quote the science informational source How Stuff Works. “If you want to use your dishwasher during peak times, you pay more. With dynamic pricing, consumers are offered rate discounts during normal usage periods and charged higher rates during peak times.”

This means that consumers should feel inclined to use their electronic appliances, especially the ones that suck up more power like washing machines, during hours where less power is required to be supplied by the grid. Since the consumer is using energy at a more responsible time, the grid is less burdened to provide energy and the consumer can be rewarded by paying less for this energy.

Another exciting technology of the future in regards to electricity usage is what is called a “smart grid.” While some might get images of the rogue artificial intelligence HAL-9000 from 2001: A Space Odyssey, in reality a smart grid is simply an updated version of the current power grid that can, “automate the flow of electricity as needed, identify and isolate load problems; it would also be able to handle uneven supplies of energy from renewable sources such as wind and solar power.” Unfortunately, a smart grid can only communicate with “smart” households, which means that homeowners will need to either install compatible systems themselves, or the government will have to mandate their use in future housing projects.

Demand response is a green initiative that could have real positive benefits to both consumers’ wallets and the environment alike.

Sources:

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/demand-response.htm

http://www.ieso.ca/imoweb/pubs/marketReports/monthly/2006sep.pdf

http://www.thestar.com/business/2007/08/06/a_megawatt_saved_is_a_negawatt_earned.html

Purpose/Hypothesis

In our solar cell experiment, we were tasked with experimenting with solar panels and how they function. In the first part of the lab we wanted to see how changing the intensity of light affected the amount of electricity produced by the solar cell. Since we were using a flashlight with a constant intensity, we needed to alter the intensity by instead changing the distance of the light to the solar cell for each trial. A second part to the lab had us experiment with different colored filters to change the wavelength of the light, while intensity remained constant, and record the results on electricity generation the filters had.

Materials

Solar cell, NXT robot, colored filters, flashlight, ruler, voltage probe (plus alligator clips), a Labview program and Excel spreadsheet were set up prior to class to record our data as we conducted the experiments.

Procedure 1 (Light Intensity)

1. Hook up the alligator clips attached to the voltage probe to the solar cell’s wires and plug the probe into the NXT
2. Attach the NXT to the computer
3. Open Labview and run two control experiments with no light source: one with the solar cell turned upside down, and one with the cell turned right side up
4. Run 4 tests to determine how intensity of the light affects voltage produced: One with the flashlight 0cm away from the cell, one 10cm away, one 30 cm away, and one 60 cm away
5. Get an average of the voltage produced, as recorded by LabView and Excel and graph the findings.

Results of Procedure 1

The results show that our hypothesis was correct. As the light got less intense (moved farther away) from the solar cell, the voltage clearly reduced. The most voltage was recorded when the light source was directly on top of the solar cell.

Procedure 2 (Light filters)

1. Run one test with no filter at 0cm for a control
2. Run 4 tests with 4 different filters all at 0cm from cell
3. Record summary of voltages produced by each filter and graph results

Results of Procedure 2

The results show that using any type of filter reduces the voltage produced by the solar cell. No filter produced the most electricity.

A shake flashlight, which utilizes a magnet traveling between coiled copper wire to create an electric current, was the basis for our experiment.

Background/Purpose

In our electricity generator lab, we were tasked with studying the effects of one of the most important physical laws regarding electricity: Faraday’s Law. The law states that, “changing magnetic fluxes through coiled wires generates electricity (currents and voltage). The greater the change in magnetic flux, the greater are the currents and voltages.” The purpose of this lab was to see how Faraday’s Law affected the electricity generated by increasing the magnetic flux in a shake flashlight. It was hypothesized that as the flux was increased (by increasing the rate of shaking the flashlight), the electricity generated would also increase.

Materials

The NXT robot, a modified shake flashlight that channeled its electric current through two wires rather than to a light bulb, and alligator clips on a cord that can be plugged into NXT. A Labview program and Excel spreadsheet was already set up for us before class to record all of our data automatically with each test.

Procedure

1. Hook up the shake flashlight’s wires to the alligator clips
2. Hook up the clips to the NXT, hook up the NXT to the computer
3. Open the Labview program that will track the voltage generated by the shaking flashlight over a set period of time
4. Perform three tests: Once without shaking the flashlight, once shaking it 25 times (slower rate of shaking), and lastly by shaking it 50 times (fast rate of shaking)
5. Calculate the sum squared of voltages produced with Excel and graph the results

Results

As seen in the screenshot above, the results confirmed our hypothesis. Negligible electricity was produced when the flashlight was left static. Any electricity created from this control test can be chalked up to residual charge left within the magnet and coil. The next test was a light to medium shaking rate of 25 shakes in the allotted testing time. The results of the sum of voltages squared showed this increase of activity really created a huge jump in the amount of electricity produced. Finally, in our final trial, shaking the flashlight 50 times at a constant and fast rate produced by far the most electricity. This experiment helped demonstrate that Faraday’s Law is just that, scientific law. It is experiments like this one that brought about my blog’s name: science, it works.

When Tom Vales came into our class to discuss some utterly strange looking devices, I have to say that I was honestly quite excited. Free energy and electricity generating devices is something I have an amateurish passion for, and so to see some of the more unique ones up close was a fun opportunity for me and everyone in the class. I’ll give a quick breakdown of the devices he showed to the class.

The Stirling Motor

The Stirling engine utilizes temperature fluctuations to create a flow of energy

Firstly was the Stirling Motor, which has been touted as a potential replacement for steam engines. It is already used in Maine for emergency backup generators. The motor is fueled by the fluctuating temperature, from a source of hot water, moving air from one location to another, which moves a turbine-like device. In small scale, this engine is bona-fide free energy.

Jean Peltier Device

Jean Peltier was a physicist who dealt with experiments regarding electrical currency.

The Jean Peltier device was not expanded upon in great detail. The notes I gathered state that it is a device that utilizes the electrical conductibility of different elements (bismuth and copper for this example). One side is inundated with an electric charge, which transfers to the other element as heat energy which has a few potential uses.

Mendocino Motor

The medocino motor utilizes solar energy to spin and utilizes created magnetism to literally float in space

The medocino motor was certainly one of the more “showy” devices that Professor Vales demonstrated. If this device was constructed back in the early medieval era, you’d be condemned as a witch or demon for sure. The device works on solar energy. Four solar panels are placed into a configuration where they activate a wire that turns the panel 90 degrees for each panel. Four rotations of 90 degrees is of course a full circular rotation, and the result is that as long as the device is being fed with solar energy and is not manipulated by outside sources, it will spin freely forever in a magnetic field. This motor demonstrates DC motor theory, magnetic theory, and solar energy capabilities in one package.

Tesla Coil

The Tesla Coil never fails to inspire some “ooos” and “ahhs”

Lastly, Professor Vales demonstrated one of my favorite pieces of technology, the Tesla Coil. Invented by one of the most ingenious inventors in history, Nikolai Tesla, the Coil shows the awe-inspiring power of alternating current electricity. When Mr. Vales held up various devices around the field generated by the current, they glowed to life as the current ran through them, demonstrating how alternating current flows in our electrical outlets of our homes for example.

The presentation was very intriguing to me and I hope to discuss some of the matters with Professor Vales more in depth at some point in the near future.

The series of mechanical and structural failures that besieged the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear facility in the chaos that ensued after the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and subsequent tsunami have gone down in history as the largest nuclear disaster since the Chernobyl event of 1986. The meltdown of the radioactive materials in three separate reactors led to the event being rated as a 7 on the International Nuclear Event Scale, the most extreme and dangerous rating possible. While the event has been labeled as “not the worst nuclear accident ever” by some analysts (citing Chernobyl as more extreme), the Japanese meltdown event was certainly the most severe nuclear event to ever happen in the new age of 24-hour news cycles and constant online coverage. “This was a crisis that played out in real time on TV. Chernobyl did not. This crisis just goes on and on,” said James Acton, Associate of the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

The disaster happened as a direct result of the 9.0 magnitude earthquake that devastated Japan on March 11th, 2011. Reactors #1, #2, and #3 of the plant had been active at the time of the earthquake and were automatically shut down as part of emergency earthquake protocol. However, the emergency generators that were now powering the cool-down process for a recently shut down reactor were housed on ground floor facilities. The enormous tsunami waves that swept across Japan after the tremendous quake flooded these facilities and shorted out the emergency generators. Now the reactor cores had become literal nuclear ticking time bombs. Reluctant to flood the reactors with seawater (a fail-safe protocol to cool them down) because of the assured ruination of the plant’s expensive reactors, the nuclear materials in all three cores rapidly reached their boiling temperatures and melted down. Contamination of the outside environment was now an unavoidable consequence.

As we look back on the disaster from our vantage point nearly 2 years later, it seems Japan actually made it out of this frightful encounter without heavy damage. While the nuclear radiation emitted was underestimated by Japanese government agencies initially, the World Health Organization has measured it recently as being largely indiscernible to the people even within close proximity to the nuclear facility. The report claims, “experts calculated that increase at about 1 extra percentage point added to a Japanese infant’s lifetime cancer risk.” There have been some concerns about contaminated groundwater and contaminated wildlife, and so steps such as advising not preparing infants’ food with groundwater have been taken. Aside from groundwater, serious concerns about radiation that leaked into the ocean have been discussed. During the summer of 2012, there was an incident where over 250 times the legal limit of cesium-137 (a fission aid in nuclear reactors) was found in two fish caught close to the shore of Fukushima.

This disaster brought back fresh all the fears that have been bubbling around nuclear energy since the Chernobyl incident in Ukraine and the Three Mile Island Near-Meltdown incident in the United States. The public is well aware that using radioactive materials to create steam to generate power has a dangerous caution tag attached to it at all times, and incidents like this will throw fuel on the anti-nuclear power side’s fire. However as I find is often the case, keeping a level head and keeping the proper perspective is always important, especially in the aftermath of an emotional and tragic disaster such as this. Nuclear energy certainly has a dangerous and problematic downside, but the upsides of nuclear power shouldn’t be disregarded because of the potential for meltdowns like this one. A great deal of non-fossil fuel based energy can be created with this method, and in the proper environment with the proper precautions, incidents like the Fukushima disaster can be kept in check. It also cannot be understated that regardless of the efficiency or inefficiency of the reaction to it, this meltdown happened only due to the occurrence of an unforeseeable and enormous earthquake.

References:

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/06/06/japan.nuclear.meltdown/index.html?iref=NS1

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/12/japan-severity-idUSTKE00635720110412

http://www.ibtimes.co.in/articles/132391/20110409/japan-nuclear-crisis-radiation.htm

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-02-28/world/37338558_1_thyroid-cancer-cancer-risk-treatable-cancers

http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/05/24/nuclear-japan-radiation-fukushima-idINDEE84N0CR20120524

For our next experiment using the NXT robot, we conducted (and then watched) an experiment dealing with varying weights on a pulley system. The goal was to better understand some of Newtons fundamental laws of physics and the law of conservation of energy by experimenting with mass, velocity, and power. Setting up for the experiment was mostly done for us pre-class, but we had to familiarize ourselves with the different types of weights and how to attach and detach them, as well as how to make the pulley lift the weights through the NXT. We also had to use a ruler and manually measure the distance traveled by the weights for each test, so there is a margin of error involved in the experiment.

The first thing we wanted to explore was Newton’s 2nd law (F = ma) by setting up the experiment two different ways. The first method we tested was as follows: We kept a consistent amount of weight for the pulley to lift for three trials, and increased the power level during each trial (from 40, to 60, to 100 [full power]). The results are shown in the following graph:

This shows that increased power level had a direct correlation with increased acceleration.

The next experiment was to test if mass affected the rate of acceleration:

This graph shows that decreasing the mass has a direct correlation with increasing acceleration.

The next step was to explore the law of conservation of energy. The method we used for this was to take a statistic logged by the LabView program, battery discharge (which records the amount of energy expelled by the battery during its mechanical operation), and compared it as we changed the mass of the weight on the pulley. The power level used stayed consistent at 40. The results showed:

This test showed that as the mass increased, the battery needed to expel greater amounts of energy to perform the work.

Lastly, we were tasked with testing how the change in power level affected the overall power of the robot’s motor. This test was easy to predict but it was important to test regardless, since you want to make sure your motor is functioning properly. The results were:

The graph shows that power increased directly with the increase in power level. This was the expected result

Overall the pulley experiment was a success and showed our group firsthand how certain variables like mass and power level affect acceleration and other areas of physical science theory.

The financial collapse of the solar cell company Solyndra in 2011 caused a serious backlash in the public perception of green energy initiatives and especially the perception of government based subsidies of green energy companies. Solyndra was a California-based company that built cylindrical solar tubes, capable of absorbing solar energy from any direction. The company was initially an exciting and successful endeavor, turning a profit of about $250 million in sales during its first years in business.

However the success was not to last.  It ran into trouble once foreign companies started producing and selling the same type of tubes for much cheaper prices. Solyndra “couldn’t compete against inexpensive cells flooding the market from new, heavily subsidized factories in China. In addition, Solyndra’s foreign competitors started offering extended payment plans. As a result, some Solyndra customers refused to honor their previously agreed-upon payment terms.”

Solyndra wasn’t without help in their endeavor towards making green energy technology a staple of America’s new energy policy. President Obama gave Solyndra $535 million in federal loans (a direct loan from the government) but it proved futile in the end. This was obviously terrible publicity for any aspiring green energy companies that hope to receive some aid from the federal government. The population sees something like this and immediately thinks, “Why is the government funding failing companies like Solyndra, why are they funding these companies here at all when China produces the same stuff for cheaper?”

Well that attitude is exactly the kind of thing we cannot afford to believe. America can either get with the times when it comes to expanding green energy or we will be left behind. Allowing foreign nations to not just surpass us, but actually turn a profit on us in these industries could mean we’re forever playing catchup in an area of industry that will literally run the world when our fossil fuels start to dry up in a matter of decades.

This is why, although Solyndra’s unfortunate demise should give government incentive to do more research on the whole situation before handing our hundreds of millions of dollars, it should not be an event that forever alters the public perception of government subsidies for green energy technologies.

Sources:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=cylindrical-solar-cells-give-new-meaning-to-sunroof

http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Solyndra-files-bankruptcy-employees-sue-2311147.php

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/2011/09/27/solyndra-illuminating-energy-funding-flaws/

Hydraulic Fracturing, known by its much cooler name of “hydro-fracking,” is a process used to tap into reserves of different resources, but for the purpose of this post we will be discussing hydro-fracking’s use in the acquisition of natural gas. While humans have been utilizing fracturing techniques based in hydraulics since the 1950s, using it to acquire large quantities of natural gas is a relatively new endeavor for the United States, and was jump-started largely by current President Barrack Obama.

The physical process of hydro-fracking is slightly complicated but I’ll give a brief summary. The main goal of hydro-fracking is to locate resources like natural gas that is trapped in between rock layers and forcing it out of the ground by using a fracturing fluid to create a channel for the gas to flow up and be collected. The process of hydraulic fracturing will, according to the National Petroleum Council, “account for nearly 70% of natural gas development in the future.” Hydraulic fracturing also puts a significant number of Americans to work, accounting for about 600,000 jobs in the country according to IHS Global Insight. Hydro-fracking is the only method known that makes drilling for the vast resources of natural gas available to the U.S. truly viable.

Positive aspects of utilizing hydraulic fracturing to access natural gas includes lessening our dependence on foreign oil and environmentally crippling coal. Natural gas is much cleaner burning than the latter two and it is located within our borders. It gives us better energy independence and can put hundreds of thousands of people to work.

The potentially negative consequences of hydro-fracking are definitely concerning considering the fact that it will become the primary method of fossil fuel extraction in the United States in the coming years. The primary concern with hydro-fracking is that the chemicals used to make fracturing fluid are potentially hazardous to humans should they seep accidentally into ground water/drinking water reservoirs. According to one environmental watchdog, “The drilling boom in Colorado’s Garfield County has triggered a rash of citizen complaints that petrochemical pollution has caused adrenal and pituitary tumors, headaches, nausea, joint pain, respiratory problems, and other symptoms.” These issues can arise from air pollution stemming from the hydro-fracking sites and not just ground-water contamination.

So the facts are laid out on the table. Hydraulic fracturing is easily one of the most important technologies we possess when it comes to securing a cleaner source of energy, and it lessens our need for oil from unstable parts of the world like Kuwait or Saudi Arabia. However the environmental risks associated with hydro-fracking are very real and can be deadly if energy companies aren’t careful or held accountable enough.

Sources:

National Petroleum Council, Prudent Development: Realizing the Potential of North America’s Abundant Natural Gas and Oil Resources, September 15, 2011

IHS Global Insight, The Economic and Employment Contributions of Shale Gas in the United States, December 2011.

Valerie J. Brown – “Industry Issues: Putting the Heat on Gas”             http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1817691/

Amy Mall – “Incidents where hydraulic fracturing is a suspected cause of drinking water contamination” http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/amall/incidents_where_hydraulic_frac.html