Final Experiment! (with Jennifer Straka)

The Theory:

Jennifer and I have always heard that some lightbulbs are more efficient than others. When we were younger, CFL bulbs were very popular, especially in my house with my eco-conscious family. They were significantly more energy efficient, so naturally my family stocked up on them. Nowadays, we also have LED bulbs, which we’ve been told use even less energy. We wanted to prove that these bulbs are better than regular incandescent bulbs, and we also wanted to see which bulb was the number one most energy efficient. This course has helped us to think about how our every day actions can have serious impact on energy consumption as a whole, and especially since Jennifer is an interior design major, it’s important for us to be aware of our options as conscious consumers. We wanted to embark on a final project that would hammer this point home, both for us and our classmates.

 

The Setup:

We decided to create an experiment that would allow the students to test exactly how much power was used by each of the three types of lightbulb: Incandescent, CFL, and LED. To do this, we knew we would need some sort of lamp, and so, feeling ambitious, Jennifer and I decided to wire one up from scratch! Hands down this was the coolest and most fun part of the whole project. We used YouTube videos and the assistance of some friendly Home Depot workers to figure out how we would connect our circuit, and left with all of our materials and this helpful diagram that a man from Home Depot drew for us:

IMG_5440
Thank you, Home Depot of Watertown!

 

 

We bought wire, a plug, a switch and casing for the switch, lamp housing, bulbs, and pliers. The initial assembly seemed easy enough, we were just following instructions and making sure we twisted the wires around the screws in the right direction so that when the screws were tightened the wires wouldn’t become loose. We were very careful about our safety; we marked the wires as the Home Depot worker suggested, and we were careful to cover anything that could possibly be harmful with electrical tape. Despite following directions, the circuit didn’t work! Naturally, when we brought it back to Home Depot, it worked perfectly. We were very excited with what we had built!

IMG_5559
Very excited that our circuit worked!

We later ran into some trouble with exactly what the experiment would be. First, we had the idea to use solar cells to measure light output, the way we had in our light intensity experiment. We thought it would make sense to have students use technology and programs they were already familiar with. The problem became figuring out how exactly we could have students measure the power that went into the circuit, something that was almost impossible to do safely, we discovered, thanks to a faculty member who stopped us before anyone got seriously injured. We had planned to use a multimeter to determine amperage as well as resistance, but to determine amperage we would have needed to connect the multimeter to exposed wires, which is especially unsafe when connected to a wall plug with an output of 120 Amps. This threw a wrench in our operation, so to speak, and after quite a bit of struggle, we ended up using information we found online to plug into a formula: P=(V^2)/R

IMG_4193
The math behind our experiment!

Because all of the bulbs were advertised as 40 Watt or 40 Watt equivalent, we did not expect the solar cells to be all that useful. In theory, they should all produce the same brightness; the real difference between them was the amount of energy they used. Within this equation, that meant the power out should have been about the same, but the power in was really the thing we were looking to measure. However, we were unable to measure voltage safely, and even with faculty assistance we were unable to measure the resistance of both the CFL and LED bulbs. We used the chart below to work within the formula to figure out the resistance of each bulb, so that we could give the resistance to the other students, allowing them to use that number to determine wattage.

Screen Shot 2015-12-14 at 7.27.13 PM
source: http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=cfls.pr_cfls_lumens

 

We determined, using the lowest possible wattage in an attempt to remain optimistic, that the three bulbs had resistances of .0028, .0042, and .0029 ohms, respective to the chart above. We did this by using the same formula from above, plugging in the lowest wattages from that chart and measuring voltage with a solar cell for each bulb. We then provided these numbers on our handout so the students would focus more on finding wattage, which was originally the point of the experiment.

 

The Results:

Students seemed to have fun with our experiment! The first student who performed it got amazing results, with his calculated wattages of around 39.6, 8.7, and 6.1 respectively! The experiment was straightforward and not too complicated to figure out, since we had used the materials before and our handout instructions were clear. The most feedback we received was that the experiment was cool, that it made the point about small lifestyle changes we could make, and everyone really seemed impressed that we managed to wire a circuit from scratch all by ourselves! Naturally the data the students gathered was not exact; there are many reasons for imperfect results. One large reason is that the numbers the students were provided for resistance were both rounded and calculated from our recording; even if we had recorded our voltages exactly right, we rounded our resistances to the fourth decimal place. Of course, we surely did not record our voltages right. A solar cell is unquestionably not the proper way to test for lumens. Materials exist solely for that purpose, and are made to be exact, unlike the solar cells provided by Suffolk University. There was also lots of room for human error within this experiment. Perhaps a student held the solar cell closer to one bulb than they did to another, perhaps their hands shook, or they hit ‘run’ on the program a second or two early. While this experiment was definitely not worthy of being published, there are luckily many studies out there on this topic that have been peer reviewed and are much more trustworthy than ours! However, we feel successful in what we set out to do: we proved to students that different types of bulbs require different amounts of energy, we proved to students that LED lights are the most energy efficient, we helped them to prove those things for themselves, and to top it off, we are now both confident in our abilities to wire a circuit with a lightbulb! Despite all the bumps along the way, we would definitely have to call this experiment and the experience in general a success.

 

If you are interested in other studies conducted about this topic, here are three different consumer-directed articles that might be of interest! They seem to be directed toward the question of cost-efficiency, so if your main focus is in being eco-friendly, these might not necessarily be the sources for you.

1. http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine/2013/10/best-energy-saving-lightbulbs/index.htm

2. http://energy.gov/energysaver/lighting-choices-save-you-money

3. http://www.goodhousekeeping.com/home-products/light-bulb-reviews/g358/best-energy-efficient-light-bulbs/?slide=6

Assignment 10.2: The Keystone XL Pipeline

The first thing I discovered about the Keystone XL Pipeline was that it is incredibly hard to find unbiased sources on it. There seems to be a very divisive issue on whether it should expand or not. The basic idea is that this is a pipeline that would go from Alberta, CA all the way down to Nederland, Texas, USA, and would cary 830,000 barrels of oil daily. A pipeline already exists in that way, the Keystone pipeline, but the proposed Keystone XL would be a shortcut that travels a quicker path, depicted below:

(A map of the Keystone Pipeline, in brown, and the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, in blue dotted lines. Source: http://keystone-xl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/TransCanada-Keystone-Pipeline-System-Map-2015-06-08.jpg)

 

The Keystone XL website claims that this new pipeline is essential for providing jobs in the US, can allow us to discover more crude oil on our own land, and reduces foreign dependency on oil. Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman has approved the route through Nebraska, although this route will not exist: President Obama has decided not to approve a permit for this pipeline. Many environmentalists have protested the building of the XL pipeline for a few reasons. The kind of oil this pipeline would carry, heavy oil-sands petroleum, derived from the naturally occurring oil sands that are mixed with clay and water, among other things. People fear that were this pipeline to leak, it would be much more devastating than regular oil. Another concern is about the way this oil-sand petroleum is processed. There are two ways the petroleum can be derived, and neither way is healthy for the ecosystem. From the New York Times:

“In one method, large amounts of water and natural gas are used to pump steam into the sands to extract the oil, which creates toxic environmental runoff.

Alternatively, energy companies strip-mine the sands and then heat them to release the oil, a practice that has already destroyed many acres of Alberta forest. An environmental review by the State Department concluded that production of oil-sands petroleum creates about 17 percent more carbon pollution than production of conventional oil.” (Source:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/19/us/politics/what-does-the-proposed-keystone-xl-pipeline-entail.html?_r=0)

The jobs this pipeline would create would be almost entirely temporary; out of the roughly 40,000 new jobs that politicians are citing this would create, only 35 of them would be permanent. It seems clear that this project would only do more harm, in terms of the environment, than good, in terms of the economy.

 

Sources:

About the Keystone XL Pipeline

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/02/24/3626301/keystone-xl-vetoed/

Assignment 10.1: Project Brainstorming

Jennifer Straka and I have worked very efficiently together on experiments in this class, so it seemed like a no-brainer that we would work together for this experiment as well. We were trying to come up with ideas that were doable, relevant to our interests, and were things we could really learn from. It was important to us that we would be able to apply the information we learned from this experiment to our everyday lives. On my midterm, it was noted that I had forgotten to include lifestyle changes that made it possible to cut down a dependence on fossil fuels, so I was interested in an experiment that related to that. Jennifer is an interior design major, so we wanted an experiment that would relate to her interests as well. Once we decided to do an experiment with different types of lightbulbs, we knew we had found the right topic for both of us.

We wanted to look at regular iridescent lightbulbs, CFC bulbs (compact fluorescent), and LED bulbs. We were familiar with the concept that the last two types were more energy efficient, but by how much were they more efficient? Which one was the most efficient? We decided to design an experiment that would compare these three bulbs in terms of the power they used and the light intensity they produced. Having done the experiment with the solar cells already, we knew that would be a good way to measure light intensity that our fellow students would be familiar with already. A quick YouTube search brought a video that had used multimeters to measure the power used, giving us both pieces of data we were looking for with this experiment.

A few days after class, Jennifer and I went to Home Depot together to pick up other materials we needed. We found a very helpful employee who was kind enough to walk us around and make sure we picked the safest materials, so we could wire the circuit connecting the bulb to power without any risk of hurting ourselves or anyone else who would perform this experiment. We bought the bulbs, wire, lamp housing for the bulbs, a plug, and wire cutters. We now believe we have everything we require for this project, and tomorrow we’ll begin assembling our circuit, which I really look forward to! Neither of us have ever wired lights before, so this will already be a learning experience before the experiment even begins!

 

Assignment 9.1: The MIT Nuclear Reactor

On Friday, November 6th, we were lucky enough to get to visit the Nuclear Reactor that MIT uses for research. We got a sit down lesson on the brief history of this particular reactor and also how this equipment works and what it can be used for. The thing that struck me most about the whole visit was how hard the staff works to make sure it is a safe space to operate and bring visitors to. From the second we arrived, we were given devices that were able to determine how much radiation we were about to be exposed to. We also double checked for contamination on our hands and feet on the way out. There were tons of monitors all over that place that measured the radiation in the environment, and there was a control room to specifically monitor different levels of radiation, temperature, power, and other measurements that are necessary to keep the space safe. I was really struck by all the preventative measures there were at the nuclear reactor, and it made me feel much better about being there.

 

The reactor is kept in a building that consists of one large dome of concrete, and inside of that is another large box of concrete and lead that the reactor core is kept inside of. The concrete and lead are too thick for the radiation to get through, so this too is a safety measure, both to keep the radiation inside of the core and in the worst case scenario, to keep it inside of the dome so the city of Cambridge doesn’t have a nuclear crisis. Inside the inner concrete, the core is kept surrounded by water, used as a coolant. There are 27 spaces in the core for fuel cells, although usually only 24 are used and the other three spaces can hold dummies or experiments. The nuclear reactor lab here is of course mostly used for research, so the types of experiments that occur can vary wildly.

 

I was also surprised that the workspace had some fun and decor in it. There were little decals of molecules and atoms on the walls, which was cute, and I also noticed that one old shipping tank had been nicknamed “Nessie” which I thought was adorable. The people there took their jobs seriously, which is necessary for a space that could be so potentially dangerous, but it was not an anxious environment. I left feeling surprised that it seemed like it would be a fun place to work. Both of our guides were brilliant, well informed, and excellent communicators that were able to explain the information in a fun and passionate way, which can be hard to do when talking about something so complex and challenging as fission and fusion. I’m grateful for the experience I had, because I can honestly say I don’t think I’ll ever get the chance to go inside of a nuclear reactor lab ever again.

Assignment 8: Global Solar Innovation

Worldwide, countries are beginning projects that incorporate the sun’s energy instead of fossil fuel energy which most states have come to rely on. Although there are many fascinating projects globally, I will refrain myself from speaking about all of them at length, and will instead focus on just three countries that are doing cool things: Serbia, Finland, and The Netherlands.

 

Serbia has a really interesting new project called Strawberry Tree. Strawberry tree is a charging station created to help those of us who forget to charge our phones overnight and then discover midday that we’re in desperate need of charging. The coolest part about Strawberry Tree is that it’s entirely solar-powered; it can even continue to run for 20 days without sunlight, in case the weather happens that way. Other cool features are that it can measure air pollution, UV-radiation, and noise levels. Strawberry Tree is made from 98% recyclable materials, and in December 2014 there were already 12 different Strawberry Trees across Serbia, including Belgrade as well as smaller towns. One of the best parts about this is that many of the people who use Strawberry Tree have never really used clean energy before. The more we can introduce people to the possibility of using more clean energy, the easier it will be to lessen our fossil fuel dependence.

(People charging their phones with Strawberry Tree in Serbia. Source: http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/141126105815-strawberry-tree-2-horizontal-large-gallery.jpg)

 

In Finland, there is a beer company that wants people to experience solar energy in the most appetizing way possible: through food. The Lapin Kulta solar kitchen (http://lapinkultasolarkitchenrestaurant.com/) first opened in Helsinki but continues to have pop-up restaurants all over Europe. It is especially popular in Southern countries that get more sunlight, because naturally, the kitchen can only operate on sunny days. A Milan location just opened up, and the reception to this restaurant has been very positive.

(Source: https://vimeo.com/26867515)

 

The Netherlands are already known for being a green country, with some of the most impressive bike lanes in the world. However, these bike lanes are becoming even better. The country has some 250 miles of bike paths, and in 2012, the country had planned to cover these paths in crystal silicon solar cells underneath a protective layer of glass, making it safe to bike over. This endeavor planned to generate 50 kWh per square meter each year and the country had decided to put that energy towards powering traffic lights and other city needs. These bike paths would also be able to store energy, so that there would still be power flowing on rainy days and fuses wouldn’t blow on days where it was too sunny.

(SolaRoad. Source: http://rack.2.mshcdn.com/media/ZgkyMDEyLzA0LzA0LzA5XzAzXzQ5XzI2OF9maWxlCnAJdGh1bWIJMTIwMHg5NjAwPg/037333c4)

 

Sources:

http://mashable.com/2012/01/04/innovative-solar-energy-tech/#AagXppLt0iqS

http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/15/world/europe/strawberry-tree-solar-charger/

http://lapinkultasolarkitchenrestaurant.com/

 

Lab 8: Solar Cell Experiment

In this experiment, we were asked to use a solar cell, a light, a ruler, and some colored gels to determine different aspects of light intensity. Specifically, we were asked to discover the relationship between the distance between the cell and a light source and light intensity, and also the color of light and how that effects intensity.

 

My partner and I started looking at the distance between our flashlight and our solar cell. Before we really began recording data, we tested the solar cell in the dark to determine its accuracy. We attempted to incorporate this data into our graph, but the data point made the trendline look as though it didn’t match at all so we removed it from our graph. We did get a small reading, but it was negligible. It was important for us to do this though, because after this step we were aware that our cell was not perfectly accurate. Luckily, it was still accurate enough that the experiment worked out for us.

 

To explore the relationship between distance between the cell and a light source and intensity, we took light intensity measurements at five different distances: 0cm, 3cm, 5cm, 7cm, and 9cm. Our measurements were recorded by the computer in intervals of ten seconds, and so we took the average of those recordings to get out data points. As is apparent from the graph, the farther away the light source is from the solar cell, the less intensity the cell records.

Graph-Distance

 

For the second half of the experiment, we used four different colored gels to look at how color has an impact on light intensity. We had red, blue, orange, and light pink, and of course white light without a gel. We took our measurements by holding the light source directly next to the solar cell with the gel in between, so distance would not be a factor in this experiment. Our findings were about what we expected: the darker the gel, the less intensity the solar cell will record. It was no surprise that white light gave the highest intensity, and the light pink one was not far behind. It also makes sense that orange and red came next, both because the orange was less opaque than the red and the blue, but because of the wavelengths of the colors. Red light has a much longer wavelength than blue light. The only thing that really surprised me about this experiment was that there wasn’t a more dramatic difference between the intensities of red and blue light, but I suppose that has something to do with the opacity of the gels. For a more perfect experiment, if I really wanted to look at how red light and blue light compare in terms of intensity, I would pick gels that all have the exact same amount of opacity.

Graph-color

Assignment 7.2: Self-Study on Nuclear Energy

The first thing that caught my attention in the powerpoint was that nuclear energy didn’t receive a lot of attention until 1939– the same year Hitler invaded Poland. Most of the heavy research about atomic radiation took place from 1939-1945, which were the years that WWII occurred. It’s troubling that it really took the war for people to focus on this research, and even then it was mostly motivated by the idea that it could be weaponized. After the war, the focus was on using radiation to create energy, both to propel submarines and then for safe and reliable power output in the form of plants. A serious advantage of nuclear energy is that Uranium is much more potent than gasoline or coal. A smaller amount goes a much farther way than its alternatives. And because it releases fewer pollutants, using nuclear energy helps to prevent further harm to the atmosphere.

 

Nuclear power plants use both fission and fusion to create energy. Fusion is of course the fusing of two different atoms, for example when two Hydrogen molecules with extra neutrons bond with two spare neutrons to create a Helium molecule as well as a neutron. This process also releases extra energy, which is what is used to heat tanks of water, creating the steam that powers turbines, generating electricity. Fission works in a similar way, although instead of two molecules coming together, it’s one molecule that splits. Uranium-235 is the most common material for fission, although U-236 is also used. When one of these atoms is split, it starts a chain reaction which causes other atoms to split. With every split, some energy is released, so eventually the whole supply has split and enough energy has been released in the form of heat to turn the water into a nearby tank into steam, powering turbines which in turn generate electricity.

I found the chart on radiation doses to be really fascinating. I vaguely remembered from a past class that almost everything releases some radiation, but it was cool to see a list of some of the sources we might encounter. It’s cool to remember that human bodies produce radiation as well! Although it was less cool when I got to the next slide and remembered all of the damages that can occur from radiation… and it’s especially scary that genetic defects can appear the generation after somebody has been exposed.

 

I’m intrigued by the short slide on Yucca Mountain– why did that plan get cancelled? I hope we discuss that in class!

Assignment 7.1: The Fukishima Daiichi Nuclear Disaster

On March 11, 2011, a 45-foot tsunami hit Japan as a result of a 9.0 earthquake on the Richter scale. The tsunami hit three cooling towers and disabled their power, causing them to melt within three days. Another cooler was written off as damage in addition to those three melted coolers. The earthquake caused over 19,000 lives, but the power plants survived the earthquake with minimal damage. The tsunami, however, caused considerable damage. When the plants were built, it was believed that tsunamis this large were highly unlikely to come to that area, but with more research we know now that those early estimations were incorrect. Because of this tsunami and the consequent nuclear disaster, more than 30,000 people had to be evacuated out of the most dangerous areas. Although the earthquake and consequent tsunami occurred on March 11th, it took until the 12th for workers to discover radioactive material leaking out of the front entrance. The internal pressure was too much for the plant, especially with the coolers having melted, so it expelled toxic materials to lessen the pressure. It has been estimated that the amount of toxic materials is about 20% of the toxic materials that were emitted at the Chernobyl disaster.

(Fukushima Daiichi disaster. Source: FukushimaPic.jpg)

 

Since the nuclear plants were shut down after this disaster, Japan has gotten about 90% of its energy from fossil fuels, the majority of which were imported from the Middle East. A recent plan was announced by the Japanese government explaining they will reopen their shut down nuclear plants with tightened safety regulations. The government also intends to continue to research renewable energy, like solar and wind. The citizens are still uneasy; it is difficult for anyone to support nuclear energy after what their country has already endured. And, on top of that, the continued use of coal and oil is not exactly stellar for the planet. But, with these prices rising, the government has become aware that they need to slow down their fossil fuel consumption, and to the great discomfort of many of their citizens, have decided that nuclear energy is again the answer.

Sources:

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/fukushima-accident/

http://fukushimaontheglobe.com/the-earthquake-and-the-nuclear-accident/whats-happened

http://www.wsj.com/articles/japan-struggles-to-find-balanced-energy-strategy-1431545581

Assignment 6.1: The President’s Climate Action Plan

(President Obama announcing his new Climate Action Plan. Source: obama_energy.jpg)

 

In June of 2013, President Obama released his Climate Action Plan outlining his intentions for slowing down the current trends of climate change. Although this plan had more than thirty ideas, three stuck out to me in particular: Cutting carbon emissions from power plants, increasing fuel economy standards, and preserving the role of forests in mitigating climate change.

 

According to the Climate Action Plan, “Power plants are the largest concentrated source of emissions in the United States, together accounting for roughly one-third of all domestic greenhouse gas emissions.” Because these plants are such a major contributor to our country’s emissions, it is important for our government to determine which emitted chemicals are most dangerous for our climate, and then act to restrict those. In 2013, mercury, arsenic, and lead emissions were all limited, but carbon pollution from power plants was completely unrestricted. At the state level, more than half the country had renewable energy targets in place, and exactly half of the country had set energy efficiency targets. These kinds of numbers prove that people care about pollutants and energy sources. In this Climate Action Plan, the White House promises to modernize the power plants so that their emissions are cleaner as well as continue to expand into clean energy sources like efficient natural gas and renewables. Specifically, the White House promises to assign the EPA to the task of creating carbon pollution standards for all power plants, something that had worked in the past with fuel emissions and the standards the EPA had created there.

 

In 2013, heavy-duty vehicles were the second largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the transportation sector. The Obama administration had already shown that auto-emissions was an issue they considered a priority; in 2011 they set the first ever fuel economy standards for the larger vehicles that emit more pollutants. Because of these standards, it was projected that greenhouse gas emissions would be reduced by approximately 270 million metric tons and 530 million barrels of oil would be saved. And with passenger cars, this administration has already set the strictest standards in the U.S. to date. From the Climate Action Plan: “These standards require an average performance equivalent of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025, which will save the average driver more than $8,000 in fuel costs over the lifetime of the vehicle and eliminate six billion metric tons of carbon pollution – more than the United States emits in an entire year.”

 

In terms of steps to help remove some of the pollutants already in the air, there is a major source of help the government is looking to preserve: trees. According to the Climate Action plan, American forests remover 12% of the greenhouse gases released every year. This capacity to remove these gases is fragile, however, because of wildfires and deforestation, to name a few causes. The Obama Administration explains that they will continue to look into new ways to protect and restore forests as well as grasslands and marshes and other fragile ecosystems.

Assignment 5.2: Iceland and Geothermal Energy

According to the national energy authority of Iceland, 25% of the country’s total energy production is from geothermal energy. In the start of the 20th century, the country was poor and not very green, as most of the energy used was from imported coal and peat. However, by 2014, “85% of primary energy use in Iceland came from indigenous renewable resources. Thereof 66% was from geothermal.” (Source: http://www.nea.is/geothermal/) The country’s residents have been using geothermal energy for small projects for generations, like heating small pools or drying fish, or for making Iceland’s famous hverabrauth, or “hot spring bread”. In 1930 the country harnessed some of the heat by drilling holes and running pipes from the holes three kilometers away into a primary school, keeping it warm all year round. In the 1970s the country really started using this energy, because up until this point private homes almost entirely ran on oil. Now Iceland has become the leading expert on geothermal energy and works to inspire other countries who are looking into it, such as Germany, China, and the Philippines. A short video from Scientific American shows exactly what these hot springs are like and how their energy is used: http://video.scientificamerican.com/services/player/bcpid1753162298?bctid=1873043478

 

Another source (Scientific American) quotes Iceland’s renewable energy usage at 99%, leaving only 1% of their usage from a nonrenewable source. It’s no wonder that Iceland is leading the revolution on geothermal energy. In the Philippines, there is an easily accessible bank of underground heat which is not currently being used to its full potential, and in Germany a tariff has recently been introduced with 20 cents per kWH of geothermal energy. Other forms of geothermal energy have been looked at, such as supercritical steam, which the European Union, the Icelandic government, and the US National Science Foundation have worked together to explore through the IDDP, the Iceland Deep Drilling Project. The country expects to continue to grow its output of geothermal energy and hopes to share this energy with the rest of the world as they have done with a province in China which is currently being heated by Iceland’s third largest bank of geothermal energy. We can only hope that we can continue to grow our worldwide usage of geothermal energy and cut down on some of our more harmful energy sources in our attempt to preserve the world we have the way it is.

 

Sources:

http://www.nea.is/geothermal

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/iceland-geothermal-power/