For our first experiment in Sci-184 Hybrid, we basically did what I loved so much growing up, built stuff out of Legos and messed with a new computer program. Constructing the NXT Robot itself was a fun time for my partners and I. Locating certain pieces proved to be a bit of a challenge, but we persevered and got it assembled!

…Only to find that we assembled the robotic motor “arms” backwards, so the front wheel didn’t quite touch the ground as it was supposed to. We remedied this problem quite quickly, but it was a moment of the building process that will stick with me due to its sheer Homer Simpson “D’oh!” factor. The next step after assembling the main body of the robot was to connect cables from the NXT robot to its motor arms. This gives the robot the “brains” to translate incoming programming code (which I will elaborate on later in this blog) from the NXT main body to its robot arms, creating movement!

The program we were using was called LabView, and it was similar to some programs I’ve used in the past but definitely proved to be a unique experience for me. The program works by creating a kind of virtual schematic of what actions you want the robot to perform, and then actually sends the code directly to the robot via a USB cable connection so the program can be executed remotely, free of wires, by pressing a button on the main body of the NXT.

Once we were all set up with our program, we got used to using it by making it go forwards and in reverse and even dabbled with making it go in circles. Circular motion was attained by giving one motor arm more power than the other in LabView, making one wheel perform more rotations per second and therefore creating a circular motion. The main experiment we performed involved giving the robot differing amounts of battery time, or power, and calculating some statistics about it (such as distance traveled, RPMs, velocity, etc.) We calculated this by using the program and by using our own judgment with a good old fashioned ruler. I will post the results below. We calculated the percent of error in our measurements and found that all of the tests fell on or below the 20% acceptable threshold for error.

Overall this experiment went smoothly, and I had a lot of fun building the robot and messing around in LabView. Successful science!

Results of test 1: (1 sec run time)

Distance measured by ruler – 23/24 cm

Distance measured by program – 23 cm

Total rotations – 1.48

Velocity – .23 m/s

1% error

Results of test 2: (.5 seconds of run time)

Distance by ruler – 13cm

Distance by program – 11cm

Total rotations – .70

Velocity – .22 m/s

16% error

Results of Test 3: (.75 seconds)

Distance by ruler – 21 cm

Distance by program – 18cm

Rotations – 1.15

Velocity – .24 m/s

20% error

Results of Test 4: (1.25 seconds)

Distance by ruler – 33cm

Distance by program – 30cm

Rotations – 1.9

Velocity – .24 m/s

9% error

As gas prices continue to hover between “Aww I guess I won’t get dessert with dinner on Friday” and, “Aww I guess my kids can pay for college themselves or become street performers,” more people in the United States are finally coming around to the notion that it’s slightly damaging, to the environment and (most important to them) their wallets, to drive around in a gargantuan truck or mock military vehicle getting 13 miles to the gallon when the only “precious cargo” they’ll ever need to carry is their double chocolate ice cream cake from Dairy Queen. Bit of a cynical intro? Maybe. But the point remains that cars with better fuel efficiency are soaring in popularity in the present day. There are a few pertinent reasons for why this is happening.

The most important reason why more fuel efficient cars are being spit out of US factories today is simple: because the government is requiring them to. Former President George W. Bush’s administration, not exactly known by reputation for its green thumb, raised the fuel efficiency standards of US automakers back in 2007. Current President Barack Obama just raised them even higher in 2012, shooting for a rather optimistic goal of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025. Obama’s hopeful increase will be easily the largest mandate for fuel economy since the government started measuring fuel economy in 1970.

US car company executives were infuriated to a point of “camp-out on the Washington lawn” protests back in 2007/2008, but the new increase in standards faced extremely little resistance from producers. This could be partially due to the nearly $80 billion dollar bailout that president Obama orchestrated for General Motors and Chrysler (including their parts suppliers) between 2008 and 2010. That kind of handout money will make companies tolerate a whole lot of new mandates. However that likely isn’t the only reason executives don’t mind adhering to the new law.

The second big reason car companies in America don’t mind pumping out new better fuel efficient cars is that they are becoming more and more profitable by the year. When at one time, “the Detroit automakers lost money on most of their small cars, which they built mainly to push up their fleetwide mileage ratings,” it is now becoming possible to turn a large profit on smaller more fuel efficient cars. Companies can make cars more fuel efficient while at the same time keeping their cars on the cutting edge of technology, and conveniently enough the two endeavors are often achievable hand-in-hand. For instance, “Ford now offers a V-6 “ecoboost” engine on its F-150 pickup truck that generates more horsepower and torque than a V-8 that’s available—with slightly better mileage.” There is concern that the new technologies will cost consumers more when buying a car, but the hope is that mileage increases will save consumers enough at the pump annually to balance out the increased costs.

This mandated increase in efficiency is great for consumers, it seems to be great for car manufacturers who are recovering soundly from their near collapse just a few years ago, and most importantly it is good for the planet. The White House touched on how the mandate will reduce our thirst for oil significantly, saying, “these programs will dramatically reduce our reliance on foreign oil, saving a total of 12 billion barrels of oil and reducing oil consumption by more than 2 million barrels a day by 2025 — as much as half of the oil we import from OPEC each day.” More fuel efficiency also means less carbon emissions and a change in a more positive direction in regards to addressing the climate change issue. The government has claimed that “The mileage rules will cut greenhouse gas emissions from cars and light trucks in half by 2025.”

I think it’s a wonderful thing that we’re seeing a dwindling amount of Hummers on the road and an increasing amount of Priuses and Chevy Volts. While more people driving more efficient vehicles will not come close to completely erasing the decades of neglect when it came to what our cars were shooting out of their exhaust pipes, it is definitely a change for the better. The government mandating this increase in efficiency seems to be a rare occasion where the government stepped in to make a fix for something and didn’t completely screw one part of society over; everyone wins here!

Sources:

Rick Newman – US News.com, August 27th, 2012 – http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/rick-newman/2012/08/27/tough-government-gas-mileage-rules-good-for-drivers-auto-industry

CBS/Associated Press – CBS News, August 28th, 2012 – http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505145_162-57501765/new-fuel-standards-aim-to-double-gas-mileage/

Bill Vlasic – NY Times, July 18th, 2011 – http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/29/business/carmakers-back-strict-new-rules-for-gas-mileage.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Hurricane Sandy, or as it was dubbed by the ever-sensationalist media world, “Superstorm Sandy,” was a storm that raged across the Caribbean and a large portion of the northeastern United States between October 22nd and October 31st. At its peak Sandy was classified as a Category 2 hurricane, meaning that it was on the lesser side of terrifying (easy to say for someone like me who followed the coverage of it from across the ocean safely in my Prague dorm room), but still incredibly dangerous and destructive. It is estimated that Sandy caused over $75 billion in damages and killed 253 people in total from seven different countries. Perhaps the most lasting image Americans took from the storm was the dramatic flooding of New York City’s subway systems. Several US states declared states of emergency in preparation for the storm, and as a result the human loss was thankfully curtailed from what it could have been.

The real question that continues to be asked as the world is plagued with the striking blows of hurricane after hurricane in an incredibly varied range of places has become this: How much is human initiated global warming affecting the strength and frequency of these big storms? I won’t leave you in suspense. The answer from scientists appears to be overwhelmingly that, yes indeed, global warming has a significant effect on the strength of storms such as Sandy.

One effect of global warming is that the sea level is rising to noticeable levels. This can be linked partially to irregularly melting polar ice caps, the rate of which broke records this past August in Greenland. Penn State climatology scientist Michael Man says that, “…sea levels are 1 foot (30 centimeters) higher than they were a century ago,” which gave Sandy an added boost that aided its record breaking 13.2 foot storm surge that hit New York. Another effect of global warming that helps fuel hurricanes and tropical storms such as Sandy is the rising sea surface temperatures. Higher sea surface temperatures means there is more vapor in the air for storms to suck up in their development, which is then poured down on affected areas as torrential rain.

Scientists have formulated for years that a high pressure system over the North Atlantic region has “pushed” storms such as hurricane Sandy out to the Atlantic Ocean, avoiding landfall in the northeast area of the US on normal occasions. However Sandy obviously wasn’t pushed out to sea, and turned directly into the continent, puzzling scientists. It is a theory of researcher George Stone that global warming may have actually affected the jet stream and pressure system over the northeastern continental US, and if this is true then, “we might attribute a large part of Sandy to climate change…”

While scientists are in almost unanimous consensus that global climate change has a measurable and real effect on hurricanes and other types of severe weather, it is incredibly important to stress that correlation is not causation. Hurricanes would happen with or without human beings on the planet. So to say Hurricane Sandy was “caused” by global warming would be inaccurate. However, to say global warming had no effect on the surprisingly strong storm would be similarly incorrect.

Sources:

Hilary Russ – Reuters  New York, New Jersey put $71B price tag on Sandy (11/27/2012) http://news.msn.com/us/new-york-new-jersey-put-dollar71b-price-tag-on-sandy

Jeanna Bryner Melting of Greenland Ice Sheet Breaks 30-Year Record (8/15/2012) http://www.livescience.com/22387-greenland-melting-breaks-record.html

Douglas Main – LiveScience Hurricane Sandy Damage Partly Caused By Climate Change, Scientists Say (11/6/2012) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/06/hurricane-damage-climate-change_n_2081960.html

It is no longer a disputed fact among experts that humans are strongly altering the natural course of the planet with our industrial activities. These industries that continue to make life better and more comfortable for people in all different kinds of societies. However these advances are also drastically harming the only Earth that we have to make our livings on. Rampant CO2 emissions, waste disposal (or lack thereof), water pollution, and chemical tainting of natural resources that we are also rapidly using up are some of the many threats facing our planet today. Germany has emerged in the past couple decades as both a leader and innovator in usage of green technology and implementation of green energy policies.

A look at how Germany has been implementing green energy policies in a serious widespread fashion takes us back to 2000, which marks the finalization of a system of government issued mandates known as “feed-in tariffs” under the Renewable Energy Sources Act. These tariffs are a sort of contract between the government and those who choose to develop and utilize renewable energy methods to generate electricity. Individuals, corporations, farmers, private investors (basically anyone willing) can enter into a tariff agreement. The investor is given a promise that the government will reimburse them a certain amount based on the amount of energy they produce from renewable energy sources. A tariff contract will be guaranteed usually for about 20 years. This system is a useful one for green energy advancement because it places an incentive for everyday people to invest in these technologies rather than leaving them at the whim of a politician or political party (as in the US).

These tariffs have been seemingly effective thus far. The amount of electricity generated from 2000 to 2006 by means of renewable energy sources nearly doubled from 6.3% to 12%. It is estimated that up to 100 million tons of CO2 emissions in total (including electricity generating, heating, and fuel used for transportation) were avoided in 2006 as a direct result of the Renewable Energy Sources Act. Germans are actually investing in the technologies too, an estimated 9 billion Euros were invested in 2006 according to the World Watch Institute. These figures show great promise for the green policy of Germany, and since the Act is based on the voluntary investment of individuals and corporations, the country hopes to raise the percent of energy generated from renewable technologies to 45% by 2030. They have already surpassed their goal of 12.5% for 2010. The wildest ambition is to make their system run on 100% renewable energy by 2050.

However reviews for Germany’s green policies are not positive across the board. Complaints over waste disposal efficiency (only 36% of recycled plastic waste is actually required to be recycled, the remaining is usually incinerated), water limitations, and energy efficient lighting and domestic insulation show that there is no easy way to completely overhaul a country into a perfectly green place. The tariff system has also failed solar energy companies. Solon, a solar energy company in Germany, filed for bankruptcy in 2011 due to an inability to pay back the 275 million Euros in loans it needed to take as part of the feed-in tariff system. Part of the mandate includes forcing companies to pay a much higher price on renewable energy sources than commercial value.

Overall, Germany serves as a wonderful example for how to implement certain aspects of environmentally friendly policies. A system that encourages the individual to care about investing in green energy is a system that will see advances in the industry much faster than a system such as we have in the United States. While some politicians are actually still debating with one another whether or not global warming is a real thing, the US is becoming further and further indebted to fossil fuels while almost completely ignoring the potential of cleaner energies such as wind and solar. However to say that Germany is an example to follow step by step would be foolhardy. Some of the policies in Germany have put great strain on green energy businesses and on the individual, some policies are downright hypocritical when it comes to being eco-friendly (such as a mandate on energy efficient light bulbs that not only utilize dangerous mercury to operate, but ultimately wind up in a landfill as hazardous waste when they are disposed of).

One thing that is absolutely certain however of Germany’s attempts at going green is that they are legitimate attempts to decelerate our impact on the planet. The Germans recognize the harm that is being done and are at least trying to remedy the issue, rather than pushing it to the back of the desk and tabling it as is the current state of the US green energy policy. People can wait as long as they want to start caring about the environment, but the planet won’t wait to show us in dramatic fashion the errors of our ways.

Sources:

Janet L. Sawin, World Watch Institute  – Germany Leads Way on Renewables, Sets 45% Target by 2030. 2012 – http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5430

The Wall Street Journal – Germany’s Green Energy Fiasco. Dec 16th, 2011 –  http://www.thegwpf.org/germanys-green-energy-fiasco/

Center for Study of Responsive Law – How Germany is Getting to 100 Percent Renewable Energy. Nov 15th, 2012 – http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/how_germany_is_getting_to_100_percent_renewable_energy_20121115/

Spiegal Online, Alexander Neubacher. Germany’s Failing Environmental Projects. March 15th, 2012 – http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/germany-s-environmental-protection-policies-fail-to-achieve-goals-a-821396-2.html

Germany.info, Natalie Kauther (managing editor). – http://www.germany.info/Vertretung/usa/en/07__Climate__Business__Science/01__Climate__Energy__Envir/01__Gov__Climate/__Government__Climate.htm

Welcome to Blogs.cas.suffolk.edu. This is your first post. Edit or delete it under Manage>Posts or make a new one under Write>Posts then start blogging! Be sure to visit the Design tab to choose a new look for your blog as well.

Also, for immediate “how-to’s” visit the Tutorials section, or the Getting Started section.