Sustainbility, energy, and technology- Fssako

Part 1:
To start the experiment, we recorded the minimum voltage with no light coming on the solar cell.
We exposed a solar cell to a light coming from a flashlight at different distances, first against the solar cell ( to get the maximum voltage ), then we put back the flashlight at 10 cm of the cell, and finally at 20 cm.
We recorded the average of the voltages for each case on a excel data sheet. Then we drew the corresponding graph.

Conclusion:
The closer is the light, the higher is the voltage.

Part 2:
In the second part of the experiment, we have almost done the same thing. In this part we used three color filters (red, yellow, green) just in front of the solar cell. We recorded the average voltage with no filter, and then with the three other filters.
Here is the graph we have got so far:

Conclusion:
We get more voltage when there is no color filter.

We used a flashlight with a coil inside as a generator. We connected the flashlight to a voltage probe, then the voltage probe to the computer.
We recorded the voltage obtained with 0 shakes while 30 seconds. We have done again the same, but this time we shaked the flashlight at different rates of shakes, and counted the number of shakes. We did two more trials.
First trial :
0 shake ==) 0.181V
Second trial :
29 shakes ==) 0.372V
Third trial:
68 shakes ==) 75.322V

We opened the data sheet on an excel file. We took the sum of square (ssq) of the voltages obtained for each case, then we drew the graph of ”ssq of voltage Vs number of shakes”. Here is the graph we have got so far :

Conclusion:
The voltage increases with the number of shakes (energy).
At the end of the experiment the flashlight was lighting; it has been charged.

Demand response ( also called load response) programs enable energy consumers to reduce the amount of power these use during moments of high energy demand ( in summer for example). Demand response programs are popular because participants in the program are financially compensated for participating by some power companies.
This program is much need because during natural disasters, or occasionally power plant maintenance, energy demand, and supply are deeply affected. Therefore with this program, power companies can easily manage the amount of energy distributed.
Also, due to the increasing amount of natural disasters, and heat waves in the summer the demand response program is absolutely necessary in order to balance power supply.

http://www.pge.com/mybusiness/energysavingsrebates/demandresponse/whatisdemandresponse/

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

http://www.pjm.com/markets-and-operations/demand-response.aspx

Solyndra was a manufacturer of solar panels. It was founded in 2005, and was shut down in 2011 due to bankruptcy. It was based in California.
Before going bankrupt, Solyndra received a $535 million loan from the US government through the United States Energy Department for the Solyndra Restructuring plan. According to BloombergBusinessweek, “the government might get little to nothing for its $528 million claim from the loan guarantee. The government is projected to recoup at most 19 percent on $142.8 million of the loan and probably nothing on the remaining $385 million”.
The Obama administration came under a lot scrutiny for this loan given to Solyndra. Many questions where asked about why the administration would allow such a huge loan to a company whose downfall was already foreseen and Obama himself was subject to much criticism. Obama responded to criticism on October 6th 2012 by saying, “this is a loan guarantee program that predates me that historically has had support from Democrats and Republicans as well. And the idea is pretty straightforward: If we are going to be able to compete in the 21st century, then we have got to dominate cutting-edge technologies, we have got to dominate cutting-edge manufacturing.” Also when asked about the Obama Administration’s clean energy policy and the loan to Solyndra in an interview in February 2012, David Axelrod (Obama’s chief strategist) said that the clean energy program is, “good for the planet, it’s good for the economy, it’ll create great jobs…high end manufacturing jobs. This is going to continue being a thrust for us.”
On the 31st of August 2011, Solyndra announced that it would be shutting down and filing for bankruptcy. This news came as a shock to it’s more than 1,000 employees who were left jobless. This decision came up on August 30th 2011 during a board meeting when board members couldn’t decided how much more funds to add to the budget, leaving Solyndra literally broken.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-09-07/solyndra-wins-court-leave-to-seek-vote-on-bankruptcy-plan

http://www.recovery.gov/Transparency/RecoveryData/Pages/Recipient.aspx?duns=610713286

http://www.baycitizen.org/jobs/story/solyndra-shutdown-stimulus-green-jobs/

Fukushima Daiishi nuclear disaster was due to a tsunami (according to experts), which happened in Japan on March 11, 2011. Since the Chernobyl nuclear disaster (in 1986), Fukushima daiichi disaster is the world worst nuclear disaster. It causes serious damages to the Daiishi nuclear plant. Some radionucleides (due to hydrogen release) have polluted the air; the population has been evacuated within a radius of 20 km. Luckily, there were not any death due to the disaster. The tsunami had a magnitud of 9, and was implied by an earthquake deep of 15m.
The power supply and the cooling system of three reactors of the Daiisha power plant was broken-down (releasing some chemicals in the air), due to the tsunami.
Accordind to a recent report by the Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission, the cause of the nuclear disaster might be also due to both the earthquake, and the tsunami which followed the earthquake. It claims that while the earthquake, the first reactor might have been affected, causing the release of some coolant. The commission of investigation of the Fukushima daiishi disaster claims that the safety conditions in nuclear plants must be reviewed by the japanese government, and the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO, charged to maitain the Daiishi power plant), and that the disaster could have caused less damages, or even been avoided if the government, and the TEPCO had used indispensable safety conditions.
The safety conditions have to be reviewed in all other japanese nuclear plants, even if it might take a long time, because Japan might be vulnerable to another disaster like the Daiishi’s disaster.

Here is a video giving some details about what happened to the reactors:

References :

Report: Fukushima Nuclear Disaster Was Man-Made

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/06/world/asia/fukushima-nuclear-crisis-a-man-made-disaster-report-says.html?_r=1&

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/06/world/asia/fukushima-nuclear-crisis-a-man-made-disaster-report-says.html?_r=0

The objective of our second experiment with robots was to demonstrate the relationship between mass and accelaration (Newtown’s second Law), accelaration and power level, then power level and power, and finally battery drainage and mass. We program the robot with labview, and displayed the graph in microsoft excel.

First we kept the power constant, and changed the mass. We did three trials; the results are automatically record on a excel file. Here are the results we have got:
_ Trial 1
Power Level = 75,
Mass = 0.25 kg,
Accelaration = 44.7842 RPM/s
Time = 1.733 s

_ Trial 2
Power Level = 75
Mass = 0.3 kg
Accelaration = 74.8761 RPM/s

_ Trial 3
Power Level = 75
Mass = 0.1 kg
Accelaration = 35.497 RPM/s
Here is the graph we’ve got:

After that, we kept the mass constant and change the power level, to figure out the relationship between powerl and accelaration.
_ Trial 1
Power Level = 75
Mass = 0.25 kg
Accelaration = 15.2477 RPM/s

_ Trial 2
Power Level = 100
Mass = 0.25 kg
Accelaration = 88.1067 RPM/s

Here is the graph we’ve got:

Next we measured the height of string to which the mass is attached ( we got
h = 0.24m ), in order to calculate the potentiel energy which is eaqual to m*g*h ( product of mass, gravitationnal constant, and the height).
We just plugged the formula in our excel file, and it gave us the results directly.

To calculate the power ( mgh/ time ), we used the same method, just plugged the formula in the excel file.

CONCLUSION:

_ When the mass increases, the accelaration decreases, ( a = F/m, Newtown’s second law ).
_ When the accelaration increases, the power level also increases.
_When the battery drainage increases, the mass increases too.
_ When the power level increases, the power also increases.

Natural gas hydraulic fracturing consists to make more gas flow for extraction by injecting a mixture of sand, water, and some chemicals into rocks The quantity of gas increases, because the fluid used to fracture rocks is high pressurized, so it creates more ways for the gas to flow.The technique of fracturing can also be used for oil.

Even if hydraulic fracturing makes easier the extraction, it is also a factor which has bad impacts on our environment. It is not ecofriendly, and can pollute the air. It might contammine water around us with some chemicals that can be toxic to humans. Hydraulic fracking can also cause very small earthquake.

According to a study in the journal ”Earthquake Science”, more than 150 microearthquakes has been caused by hydraulic fracturing. Many states now require companies. The government is not too much involved in solving this problem, even if some states are making some efforts, and require to companies to review chemicals they are using.

Here is a link to a video about natural gas hydraulic fracturing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lB3FOJjpy7s

References:

http://www.iehn.org/overview.naturalgashydraulicfracturing.php

http://www.popularmechanics.com/_mobile/science/energy/coal-oil-gas/the-hard-facts-about-fracking

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/06/opinion/the-wise-way-to-regulate-hydraulic-fracturing.html

Gas mileage is the number of miles used by a car per a galloon of gas. Burning a lot of gas has a bad impact on the environment; it also contributes to the air pollution. Some policies about boosting gas mileage have been done before. After the Bush administration, it is the turn of the Obama’s administration to impose a certain gas mileage to car makers. By 2025, the Obama’s administration requires car companies an average of 55.4 miles per gallon (mpg), which is the double of the required mpg in 2007. Car companies are also involved in improving the gas mileage. Ford made an investment of 135 million in the development of hybrid and electric cars, and it doubled the number of its workers.Honda is also planning to hire 300 more workers. Reducing air pollution, and creating more jobs (about 484, 000 jobs) are the advantages of gas mileage.
Car buyers should also contribute to the gas mileage by:
_ Turning off the car when they are not using it
_ Use less the air conditionner
_ clean frequently the air filter
_ buying small and fuel efficient cars (if you can afford)

References:

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/rick-newman/2012/08/27/tough-government-gas-mileage-rules-good-for-drivers-auto-industry

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/08/27/738621/why-fuel-mileage-standards-will-benefit-the-auto-industry-and-create-nearly-700000-new-jobs/?mobile=wp

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/29/business/carmakers-back-strict-new-rules-for-gas-mileage.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

In the last we did, we made a car robot, and programed it with Labview. The goal was to measure by two different methods (ruler method, and LearSmart program on the computer) the distance the car travels, compare those results, and then calculate the percentage of error. Here are the steps we followed:

First step,
_ run the program to make the car move
_ measure the distance the car travels with a ruler
_ calculate the wheels’ rotation corresponding to this distance
_ calculate the time corresponding to this distance

In the second step, we use the LearnSmart program:
_ measure the diameter of the wheels with a ruler
_ calculate the circumference of the wheel
_ put the circumference on the front pannel
The computer gives directly the time, and the number of turns.

FORMULAS
_ Circumference= pi * diameter
_ wheels’ rotation= distance / circumference
_ time= distance / velocity
_ average distance= ( distance1 + distance2 ) / 2
_ Percentage of error= (|Distance1 – Distance2| / Average Distance ) * 100

We did two trials with different power levels, and the results are below:
_ Power of 50
Time: 2.5 seconds,
Distance1: 0.335meters
Distance2: 0.310 meters
Wheel rotation: 1936
Velocity: 0.1549m/s
Error % : 7.75
_ Power of 75
Time: 3.5
Distance1: 0.81m
Distance2: 0.748m
Wheel rotation: 4675
Velocity: 0.2493m/s
Error % : 7.79

In conclusion, the distance given by the computer is more precise than the ditance we got by measuring the distace with a ruler. We also notice that the car’s performance increase with the power.

Here is a link to a photo of the Car Robot:
http://sites.suffolk.edu/jtl192/files/2012/09/DSC_01351.jpg

Germany is the biggest invest the most in the production of wind power after China, India, Spain, and the US; it is also the largest investor in new capacity in photovoltaic (PV) solar and biodiesel production, and the biggest in solar hot water and heat after China since 2010. Germany is among the first countries to cut greenhouse gas emissions. It became the leader of green policies expansion.
Over the last ten years, the expansion of Germany’s renewable energy was remarkable. The CO2 emission decreased by 23 per cent comparing to the nineties levels. in 2009 the CO2 emission per capita might be decreased by about 23 percent comparing to the nineties levels. In two decades (from 1990 to 2010) the total energy consumption increase from 1.9 percent to 10.9 percent, and the tenth of total energy consumption was from renewable energy (biomass with 7.7percent, wind with 1.5 percent, and hydro-power with 0.8 percent). Adopting green policies lead Germany to to get 44 percent of the solar PV capacity, and the third largest wind capacity in the world. (photo) By the years 2020, 2030, 2040, and 2050, the emission of greenhouse gases are to be cut by respectively 40%, 55%, 70%, and about 80 to 95 %, (percentages relative to 1990 levels). By 2050, Germany’s electricity supply product from renewable energy will be at least 80%. One of the next plan is to produced more power at the sea and along the coast, instead of generating power near the place it should be used.

The economy has also benefited from the Germany’s green policy. About 340,000 jobs has been created in the area of renewable energy by 2010. The German government is involved also in sustainability in the area of transportation, they are encouraging people to use smaller cars for less pollution. The taxes fixed by the German government for car sales, gasoline, oil and are really high comparing to other countries; in the beginning of the year 2011, the price of a gallon of regular gasoline in USA was less than the one in Germany.
Germany’s green policy is certainly one of the best project against global warming, but it is getting German’s life a bit higher with the increase of electricity price. Around 420 suppliers of electricity in Germany have increased their prices for electricity suply.

References:

http://www.technologyreview.com/featured-story/428145/the-great-german-energy-experiment/

http://m.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/may/30/germany-renewable-energy-revolution?cat=environment&type=article

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/doubts-increasing-about-germany-s-switch-to-renewable-energy-a-844844.html#spRedirectedFrom=www