Introduction:

• Acid rain is a topic of much concern in today’s world. As carbon dioxide gas, CO2, dissolves in water droplets of unpolluted air, the following reaction happens
• H2CO3 is a weak acid that causes the rain from unpolluted air to be slightly acidic.
• Oxides of sulfur dissolve in water droplets to cause more serious problems. Sulfur trioxide dissolves to produce sulfuric acid, H2SO4, by the equation
• The acidity of a solution can be expressed using the pH scale, which ranges from 0 to 14. Solutions with pH above 7 are basic, solutions with pH below 7 are acidic, and a neutral solution has a pH of 7. In Part I of this experiment, you will study the effect of dissolving CO2 in distilled water, which is similar to rain water, on the pH of the water. Then in Part II, you will study the effects of dissolving sulfuric acid on the pH of different water types.
  

Objectives
In this experiment, we will:

• Study the effect of dissolved CO2 on the pH of distilled water.
• Measure pH
• Study the effect on pH of dissolving H2SO4 in various waters
• Learn why some bodies of water are more vulnerable to acid rain than others.
  

Experiment:
As a group we conducted an experiment on Acid Rain. Because we did not have access to Sulfuric Acid, we measured the Acidic levels of Orange Juice/Coca-Cola. As a result the data that we gathered produced these results:  pH is 5 for 50ml of water, pH is 3 from 50 ml of water w/Co2 for 100 seconds, 50ml of water and 20 ml of orange juice pH4, 20 ml of water and 50 ml of orange juice pH4, 50 ml of orange juice of pH 3. For Coca-Cola, 80ml of coke pH2, 80ml coke and water pH 3, and 50 ml coke + 20 ml orange juice pH4.

The construction of the Keystone XL pipeline has become a controversial issue. While the debate has mainly focused around the environmental risks, from labor’s outlook opening up the Canadian Tar Sands is often viewed as an economic issue rather than an environmental one. Some may not find this surprising because construction unemployment is double the national average. From a worker’s perspective, Keystone jobs will be a union job that pays good money in an economy that increasingly suggests only minimum-wage service work. The Keystone XL pipeline will eventually connect Canada’s vast tar sands in Alberta with refineries along the coast of Texas and Louisiana. Because the pipeline will travel the Canada-U.S. border, construction requires an agreement  by the U.S. State Department—and afterwards by the president. However, many people have been arguing about the pros and cons of building this pipeline.

People feel that building this pipeline would be bad for the economy itself and its workers. One reason it is viewed this way is because supposedly constructing the Keystone pipeline and opening up the Tar Sands will negatively effect national and local economies. Burning the reparable tar sands oil will increase the earth’s temperature by a minimum of 2 degree Celsius. NYU Law School’s Environmental Law Center estimated that this could permanently cut the US GDP by 2.5%. State and local economies are already simultaneously contorting under the real-time economic impacts of our nation’s reliance on fossil fuels. Another reason people are against it is because the same fossil fuel interests striving for the Keystone pipeline have been decreasing the amount of jobs rather than creating more. Regardless of producing $546 billion in profits between 2005 and 2010, ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, and BP diminished their U.S. workforce by 11,200 employees over that extent of time. In the year 2010 alone, the top five oil companies cut their global workforce by 4,400 employees, which was the same year executives compensated themselves around $220 million. One major negative effect this pipeline could create is a rise in unemployment. According to Mark Zandi, the Chief Economist of Moody’s Analytics,“Superstorm Sandy wreaked havoc on the job market in November, slicing an estimated 86,000 jobs from payrolls.” Also, poor and working people will be unduly afflicted. KXL and other projects like it conclude an excessively negative impact on working families whom are already struggling. According to a recent article by the Center for American Progress called “Heavy Weather: How Climate Destruction Harms Middle- and Lower-Income Americans”, lower-and middle income households are immensely affected by the most costly severe weather events. In 2011 & 2012, sixteen states were damaged by five or more severe weather events. Households in catastrophe-asserted counties in these states acquire $48,137, or seven percent below the U.S. median income.

One of the pros for building this pipeline is that it would be a secure and safer way to ship oil sands crude. The central environmental argument against TRP’s Keystone XL is that the pipeline would spur ascending oil sands production. Although, the State Department’s findings displayed that higher production from the region is anticipated— whether or not the Keystone XL is constructed. Ultimately, that crude oil would be deposited via railway if the TRP’s pipeline isn’t built. With some high profile crude-by-rail calamities happening recently, the Keystone XL might really be the safer substitute for the oil sands. Another positive effect this pipeline could have is create an instantaneous accredited cash flows. Pipelines are especially great for constant and stable cash flows.In the course of time, it’s the volume of oil, not the price that matters to the pipeline owner. The authorization of the Keystone XL would be great for TRP stock cash flows and its profit, especially in light of the long, lengthy consent process has actually been a big success for TransCanada shares. As Obama has postponed the confirmation for the pipeline, TransCanada has fundamentally been able to save up enough money to supply and build the Keystone outright. That means that any cash flow from the Keystone XL will be accretive right away to the bottom line of TRP stock and adept limited partnership (MLP) subsidiary TC PipeLines (TCP). Another positive thing is that taxes paid by TransCanada supply counties revenue that is greatly needed to pay for infrastructure. When President Obama spoke at the Port of New Orleans he conveyed the urgency to fix old roads and bridges. He gave a case of how trucking companies are rerouting their deliveries  to bypass traffic and unsafe bridges and that those expenses get passed on to consumers. This can be compared with the investments that TransCanada earns in its energy infrastructure to confirm that our systems function safely and dependably. Over the past 3-4 years, TransCanada has invested an average of more than $900 million in our pipeline uprightness and maintenance programs. Keystone XL Pipeline also improves energy security which is about safe, reliable access to various and ample energy resources. It’s also about being able to decide how those resources will be obtained, utilized and distributed. A new inclusive report from energy research organization IHS CERA, called “Critical Questions for the Canadian Oil Sands,” highlights that the oil sands have a crucial role in the energy security of the United States. The report states: “Increasing supply from Canada allows the United States to reduce its dependence on more distant supplies of oil by tanker, often from regions that are less stable and more susceptible to disruption. Pipeline and rail links between the United States and Canada constitute a “hardwired” link of Canadian oil to the US market — very different from waterborne shipments that can be diverted, even while en route” (John, Matthew).

By developing a “hardwired” connection between flourishing domestic U.S. production and expanding supplies of Canadian oil and the U.S. Gulf Coast, Keystone XL will be demanding in helping the United States decrease its dependence on oil from less-friendly, less fixed regimes in a safe and environmentally accountable manner. It’s about assertion that oil production is linked to the right markets with the right infrastructure at the right time – which is what the Keystone XL pipeline is all about.

3 Pros, 3 Cons For TRP Stock & The Keystone XL Pipeline

http://www.labor4sustainability.org/articles/5-reasons-why-the-keystone-pipeline-is-bad-for-the-economy/
http://harvardmagazine.com/2013/11/the-keystone-xl-pipeline
http://keystone-xl.com/five-reasons-why-keystone-xl-benefits-the-u-s/

For our Contemporary Science and Innovation course, our professor took us to visit MIT’s Nuclear Reactor. This nuclear reactor is one of the oldest still running and has been operating since 1958. It was upgraded in 1975 and again in 2010. It shuts down once a month for refuel (shuffle fuel around). This research reactor operates 24/7 at up to 6 MW (megawatts) thermal power. It demonstrates fission technology which is when neutrons hit a hard atom which splits apart and makes more neutrons causing a chain reaction (235 Uranium->Neutron->Fission Product). The stray neutrons are absorbed by 235 Uranium.

In the nucleus of each atom of Uranium-235 fuel, there are 92 protons and 143 neutrons, which adds up to a total of 235 particles. They are so incredibly tiny that their size is hard to even fathom. Around this nucleus spin 92 electrons, which are even tinier particles. It’s said that if the nucleus were as large as a baseball, an electron on its outer rim would be nothing more than a speck about a mile away. The MIT Research Reactor is used principally for the production of neutrons. When it is in operation, the central active core holds an authentic swarm of neutrons moving in every direction at extremely high speeds. The amount of fission in the uranium nuclei is monitored essentially by six control blades of boron-stainless steel which are added vertically alongside the fuel elements. Boron has the property of absorbing neutrons without transferring any. When the control blades are completely added, they absorb so many neutrons from the uranium that there are not enough to cause a chain reaction. To put the reactor into action, the control blades are elevated very slowly. As they absorb less and less neutrons, more and more neutrons are available to element the breaking apart of uranium nuclei, until there are enough neutrons that are being completely discharged to maintain a chain reaction.

The nuclear reactor is a heavy-water reflected, light-water cooled and moderated nuclear reactor that uses flat, plate-type, finned, aluminum-clad fuel elements. It uses water as a coolant and produces no greenhouse gases. It is dedicated for peaceful applications, R&D (Research and Development). There are 2,000 gallons of cool water being pumped a minute through the pumps in the equipment room. The electrons coming out of the reactor move faster than the speed of light. Experimental facilities accessible at the MIT Research Reactor contain two medical edification rooms, beam ports, automatic transfer facilities (pneumatic tubes), and graphite-reflector edification facilities. In addition to that, many  in-core experimental facilities(ICSAs) are also accessible.The MIT Reactor surrounds a number of basic safety features, including negative reactive temperature coefficients of both the fuel and moderator and a negative void coefficient of reactivity. Another safety feature is the location of the core within two concentric tanks. More safe characteristics it contains are the use of anti-siphon valves to set apart the core from the result of breaks in the coolant piping, a core-tank design that advances natural circulation in the occurrence of a loss-of-flow accident; and the occupancy of a full containment. All of these aspects make MIT’s Nuclear Reactor a  particularly safe facility.

http://web.mit.edu/nrl/www/reactor/reactor.htm

Earlier this month, President Obama introduced his national budget for next year which involved a chunk of it aiming towards addressing climate issues. Obama’s $3.9 trillion document assigns an estimated $1 trillion for unrestricted spending across both defense and non-defense, with the remaining going to required programs like Medicare and Social Security. Included in that $1 trillion, Obama has carved out diverse programs to advance towards his climate action plan he declared last year. Granted by briefing documents released by the White House, the President stated that he would spend $1 billion to gain a sharpened understanding of the calculated effects of climate change, to stimulate local action to diminish future hazards, and to reserve technology and infrastructure that will be more flexible with climate change.

The focal point of Obama’s plan is continued funding for regulations by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to cut carbon dioxide emissions from the nation’s power plants. The agency has already revealed the rules for new plants, and should release its rules for existing plants in June of this year. Gina McCarthy, the administrator of the EPA, stated last year that the EPA will present suggestions for current coal plants, accountable for around 40% of greenhouse gas emissions by June of this year. She also announced that the federal government was acting to cut down methane from natural gas drilling and additional manufacturers, which are a rapid growing cause of emissions. “It is by far the largest industry sector in terms of its generation of greenhouse gases,” she said. McCarthy admitted that the EPA could not carry out all of the cutbacks in greenhouse gas emissions essential to refrain from the most catastrophic consequences of climate change on its own.
In the budget, there is a great deal on climate and green energy issues. One major component is clean energy tax credits. These involve a enduring continuation of the production tax credit for wind (a cost of $19.2 billion over ten years) which concluded at the end of 2013. Along with that, there is $401 million over that time period for different fuel trucks tax credits, and $1.7 billion for cellulosic biofuel. Obama also wants to cut fossil fuel tax breaks with the budget cutting about $4 billion in tax breaks that are now accessible to the oil and natural gas industries, and another $3.9 billion in tax preferences for coal. Last month, the President announced a climate resiliency endowment and said he would ask Congress for $1 billion to fund new technology and infrastructure to get ready for climate change, help for communities, and new research– which the budget makes good promise on. Another point is that Obama wants $2 billion to completely fund a new fleet of weather satellites for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Furthermore, he even pushes for clean energy technology and claims that The National Science Foundation would receive $362 million below the budget to examine leading forms of green energy.

In 2015, overall the budget will have increased funding for the Energy Department to $27.9 billion. This would result in an increase of 2.6 percent over this year. That contains $355 million to strengthen the robustness of the electrical grid and fuel transportation infrastructure. It’s deemed pretty unlikely that Congress will pass Obama’s budget. The Union of Concerned Scientists see eye to eye with Obama’s preferences. Angela Anderson, the directors of the group’s Climate Energy Program stated “the president is confronting members of Congress with a reality they need to face: climate change is already hurting us economically. “Resilience funding is essential to confront the consequences of climate change already being felt. Beyond that, Congress needs to get serious about reducing the risks of the changing climate. Unless and until we start cutting emissions that cause global warming, the problems communities are facing, and their price tags, will continue to grow”. In his budget, President Obama highlighted some of these favorable steps, particularly renewing the production tax credit for wind energy.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-to-propose-1-billion-to-prepare-for-climate-change/2014/02/14/d18d3712-95a5-11e3-afce-3e7c922ef31e_story.html

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/03/05/3366331/obama-2015-budget-climate

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/sep/18/epa-obama-climate-change-plan-congress

The documentary Pandora’s Promise explores the idea that in the next couple decades, we will need to double or triple the amount of energy production. Director Robert Stone highlights how this is substantial in order for billions of people to carry themselves out of poverty and pursue living modern lives. One of the producers says “assuming that the world continues to develop and that China, India and Brazil become rich countries over the next half century or century, how much energy is the world going to use? When you start running those numbers, it is a sobering exercise.” He states that if we continue using energy the way we use it now, that we will double the amount of energy we use by 2050 and that by the end of the century, we will triple or quadruplet it.

The abundant expenditures of building nuclear power plants is a essential restricting determinant for the energy source. In spite of gathering excessively better subsidies than renewable energy from the introduction of its advancement, nuclear energy remains to not be competitive with fossil fuels in the United States and new wind energy is predicted to be cheaper than the new nuclear generation. The film claims that “to be anti-nuclear is basically to be in favor of burning fossil fuels”.

Only if the source of new energy is clean and non-CO2 emitting, the chance taken of bringing about a destructive global climate calamity is all but positive. The importance of this crisis, and the drawbacks of frequently projected solutions, have left the prevailing environmental development dangling between apocalyptic contemplation and sheer disorder. The documentary shows how crucial electricity is to have and how without it, the lifespan is much shorter. Clinics, schools, refrigerators, etc all rely on electricity and how the tiniest amount of watts can make just the difference. If we want to stabilize emissions at some reasonable level, almost all of that energy has to be clean energy. We have to not only develop a clean energy infrastructure to replace the fossil fuel infrastructure we have, but we have to create yet another one or two between now and 2050 and 2100 in order to reduce our emissions to stabilize the climate.

For the generator experiment we did in class, the equipment we used was one generator (magnet that moves back and forth inside a coil of wire), one voltage probe, and one NXT adaptor. We used the NXT and Labview VI programs and used excel to calculate the results into scatter charts. We used these supplies to measure the voltage output of the generator. In the lab, we had to equate the number of shakes of the generator in a thirty second time interval with the voltages (or more specifically the sum of the square of the voltages) that the generator produces. We were able to prove that the more shakes, the greater the voltage output.

The first day we did the experiment, we did a less amount of shakes (0 shakes, 18 shakes, 24 shakes, and 28 shakes) to detect the voltages. The next class we decided to switch up the amount of shakes to 0 shakes, 20 shakes, 40 shakes, and 60 shakes. Below is a linear scatter chart made on excel that displays the results we made when squaring the sum of the voltages from these shakes (0, 20, 40, & 60).

In this lab we used a shaking a tube that has a magnet which travels back and forth through a coil of wires. The lab also tested Faraday’s Law which states that changing magnetic fluxes through coiled wires generate electricity (currents and voltage). This is because the greater the change in magnetic flux, the greater are the currents and voltages. We were able to demonstrate that the faster you shake the tube, the greater the generated voltage. Furthermore, we were able to show that no matter how the change is produced, the voltage will be generated.

Energy sustainability is about discovering the balance between a thriving economy, the urgency for environmental preservation and social responsibilities so we can supply an enhanced quality of life for current and future generations. Renewable resources such as wind, sunlight and biomass maintain a source of sustainable energy. This lab relates to sustainability because of how researchers are implementing new technologies to existing plant platforms and cultivating solutions to lower the cost of electricity and increase adaptability and reliability. Energy sustainability can stimulate technical innovation with an environmentally alert mindset. In conclusion, energy sustainability is coming to terms with the needs of the present without compromising the demands for the future.

In 2012, the Obama Administration greatly increased the amount of pressure on the automobile industry into making a severe raise in the average miles-per-gallon of every single company’s fleet. The government increased the bar to an average 54. 5 mpg (miles per hour) by 2025 up from an average 28.6 mpg. These standards are fundamental for decreasing oil utilization and lowering the costs of supplying it. Many auto companies have considerably improved in building well-used fuel-efficient small cars. A majority of consumers are buying gas-electric hybrids because of the advances in battery technology. Over 50% of the top-selling cars in America are small or midsize vehicles, and one of the most favorite pickup models on the market is a Ford F-Series with a high-mileage, six-cylinder engine. Automakers and suppliers realize that an improved fuel economy means more sales, more earnings and more jobs. Many of their recent hires and investments prove this such as Ford stepping up its development of hybrid and electric cars by bringing the layout and manufacture of key elements in-house, a $135 million investment and doubling the size of its team working on leading energy technologies. This involves over 1,000 engineers and technicians which again plans to double in size by 2015. Another crucial point is Honda’s plan to hire 300 more workers next year at its Greensburg, Ind. plant, which is scheduled to also start bringing forward the Civic Hybrid. Two more examples are Volkswagen in adding a third shift at its Chattanooga, Tenn., plant, to lift production of its fuel-efficient Passat and Continental being a provider of fuel-efficient turbo chargers to Ford’s 2014 Focus. These examples present an image of a shift toward efficiency and advanced technology in driving job creation, expenditure and innovation across the country.

The presidents proposition brought in a 5% annual increase in fuel economy for cars from 2017 to 2025. The advances are more prudent for the light-truck classification, which contains sport utility vehicles, 3.5% a year through 2021, and then 5% annually in the next couple years. The guidelines declared six years ago run through 2016, demanding a collective average of 36 miles per gallon by then. As a whole, the contemporary principles will need a 54.5 miles per gallon corporate average for 2025. This is a standard that will be created more conveniently attainable by credits that automakers can acquire by producing battery-powered vehicles, hybrids and alternative-fuel models. The objective of the credits is to stimulate the development of cars with much lower emissions.

Fuel economy standards were first appointed on U.S. automakers in the 1970s. The goal was to make cars more efficient and lessen America’s reliance on foreign oil at the time when the Arab oil prohibition was contributing to gasoline shortages. The administration claimed that this had been the first update in decades. According to the research firm J.D. Power and Associates, the fuel economy is the main component people consider when buying a car in the U.S. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration will implement the principles, calculating the average mileage of cars sold by each automaker and they can be punished if they don’t comply. The conditions, which can be appointed without congressional approval, will be inspected in 2018 and could be decreased if the technology isn’t available to meet the requirements. In conclusion, the Obama Administration says families will save up to $7,400 on fuel over the life of a vehicle because of these most recent changes. Lisa Jackson, the Administrator for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), said the standards are also the biggest step the U.S. government has ever taken toward cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

Sources
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/29/business/carmakers-back-strict-new-rules-for-gas-mileage.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&
http://www.forbes.com/sites/joannmuller/2012/08/30/10-ways-automakers-are-helping-you-spend-less-on-gasoline/
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/08/27/738621/why-fuel-mileage-standards-will-benefit-the-auto-industry-and-create-nearly-700000-new-jobs/#
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/28/new-mileage-standards-obama_n_1836546.html

Hydraulic Fracturing, also known as hydrofracking, “is the process by which water, frequently mixed with proppants and chemicals, is forced down a well bore at extremely high pressure in order to create or expand fractures to release gas from the rock formation in which it is trapped” (‘What is Hyrofracking?’). Proppants are tiny fragments such as synthetic beads or sand that keep the recently developed fractures accessible so that free gas can move towards the well. The process of hydrofracking is utilized for natural gas extraction. Since natural gas plays a key role in our nation’s clean energy future, the EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency) is working with states and other main collaborators to aid in ensuring that natural gas extraction does not include public health and environment expenses.

The Agency’s goal and promises under the law are to give oversight, and advise when appropriate, rule making that accomplish the best attainable protection for the air, water and land where everyday people live and work. The Agency is also investing in bettering our scientific understanding of hydraulic fracturing, supplying regulatory precision in regards to existing laws, and using existing authorities where appropriate to enhance health and environmental safeguards. On the Agency’s website,  the EPA defines hydraulic fracturing as “a well stimulation process used to maximize the extraction of underground resources; including oil, natural gas, geothermal energy, and even water. The oil and gas industry uses hydraulic fracturing to enhance subsurface fracture systems to allow oil or natural gas to move more freely from the rock pores to production wells that bring the oil or gas to the surface.” The EPA’s study of hydraulic fracturing uses the five main research approaches Analysis of Existing Data, Scenario Evaluations, Case Studies, Toxicity Studies, and Laboratory Studies.

“In the northeast U.S.’s Marcellus Shale, the gas industry’s promise of easy money is attracting some landowners. Many landowners, concerned about the impacts of hydrofracking on their way of life, their water and air, and rural economy,  are holding out . A nationwide movement is building to stop the caustic legacy of natural gas extraction from poisoning New York State before more land and water tables are laid to waste.”

The Marcellus Shale is the largest source of natural gas in the United States. It envelops 104,000 square miles across Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, and upstate New York. Hydraulic fracturing has been used to dispense and catch the shale gas for energy consumption since 2008. The use of hydrofracking has been deeply contended, and current discoveries by Duke University further demonstrate the harsh consequences of hydraulic fracturing. Avner Vengosh, professor of geochemistry and water quality at Duke University’s Nicholas School of the Environment, stated that large absorption of energy, salts, and metals have been spotted downstream from a waste-water remedy plant in a western Pennsylvania creek. The purpose of the plant is to extract particular metals from hydraulic waste water. However, Duke team figured out that certain metals, including chlorides and bromides, have not been officially removed. As a matter of fact, they provide to four-fifths of the entire downstream chloride flow. This shows that regardless of waste-water treatment plants and attempts made to carry the waste-water to deep injection wells, waste-water remains freed into the environment in many different locations, allowing radioactive waste to seep into downstream waters.

There have been different forms of of hydraulic fracturing that have been developed for various circumstances. The one currently afflicting great concern is in New York and is known as ‘high-volume hydraulic fracturing’ (HVHF), and ‘slick water fracturing.’  In this form, millions of gallons of  water per well that was originally clean are intentionally contaminated when a wide range and large amount of very toxic chemical additives are added to it. This method integrates water with a friction-reducing chemical additive which lets the water be pumped at a quicker speed into the formation. In order to efficiently pick the correct mixtures and concentrations of frac fluid and propping agents, geologists must be knowledgeable about accumulation. To make the right approach to a frac job, geologists collect data from well logs about a majority of determinants such as porosity, saturation levels, pressure, permeability and temperature gradients.

Sources
http://un-naturalgas.org/hydraulic_fracturing_a-z.htm
http://www.safewatermovement.org/what-is-hydrofracking/
http://www2.epa.gov/hydraulicfracturing#improving
http://lawlib.buffalo.libguides.com/hydrofracking
http://www.enn.com/pollution/article/46493

In our Contemporary Science & Innovation course, we were put into small groups to build a robot car out of Legos and used the Mindstorm System in order to be able to figure out and have a better understanding on how to measure distance and velocity.  We were able to move the cars with the computer programs Labview and NXT after  we put a battery in them. When we wanted the car to turn, we would set the program up so only one of the cars wheels would move or we would have both wheels set to move but one wheel was set to accelerate at a lower speed. At one point, we set the program up so the car would make a perfect circle by only covering a space of 12 inches (we used a ruler to make sure it went exactly 1 foot).

After we were able to understand the fundamentals of the car and measuring the diameters and circumferences of the wheels, we were able to toy around with more complicating programs. We were able to program how long and far we wanted the car to move and when we wanted it to stop. We plugged the car into the computer and used the VI program to measure the circumference of the wheel and the degrees in which the wheels rotated. In order to determine the wheel diameter, we had to measure the diameter (which was 6 cm.) and multiply it by pie. We calculated the percentage error at low, average and high speeds. When we set Powers 1 & 2 to 50, we distance the car moved was 12 centimeters, the number of times the wheel turned was 0.79722 centimeters, and the velocity was 0.1435 centimeters. We were able to determine the number of wheel turns by dividing the number of rotations (which was 287) by 360. In addition to that, we measured the % error by adding the distance the car moved (.12 centimeters) to the velocity (.14 centimeters) and then divided the results (.26) by 2 which give us an estimated calculation of a 13% error. Also, we were able to calculate the velocity by multiplying the number of wheel turns by the circumference.

This lab is useful for students studying energy and sustainability because currently many scientists have been trying to find a way for us to be able to drive cars in a way that doesn’t use up so much energy. This has been very crucial to figure out because of how severe our natural disasters have been, especially since the last decade. By using these chemicals, gases, etc. we are clearly not helping prevent them from lingering in the atmosphere which contributes to global warming being such a harsh issue today.