In class last week we again used our Lego Mind-storm robotics to perform an experiment, this one explored what electricity is and what it takes to generate it.  in order to generate electricity our class used flashlights which contained a magnet and a coil of wire.  When the flashlight was shaken the changing magnetic current created electricity.  The more the flashlight was shaken, the more electricity was made because of the shifting magnetic currents, this displacement of energy is what creates electricity.  The robot was hooked up to the flashlight generator, allowing my partner and I to record data about the amount of energy being created.  This information revealed that when the flashlight was vigorously shaken, it generated large amounts of electricity.  our results show that that more shakes meant more voltage being produced.

number of shakes:             25                             45                          75

electricity generated:          6.845715V          13.6106212V         39.415332V  

This diagram shows how electricity is generated, our experiment used a similar set up

In march of 2011 Japan suffered one of the most devastating nuclear disasters since the 1986 USSR Chernobyl meltdown.  When a combination of earthquakes and tsunami’s struck the coast of Japan the damage proved to be too much for the 45 year old Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant.  Although the facility did meet all of the government’s safety standards there was not significant planning in regards to the danger of tsunamis.  The backup generators designed to keep the reactors cool in the case of emergency failed rendering the plant useless as a result of flooding.  The site consists of six light boiling water reactors, the plant is capable of producing 4.7 gigawatts of power.  Originally designed by the American company General Electrics, the station was built and run by the Tokyo Electric Power Company or TEPCO.  The plant was halfway shut down at the time it was damaged by a powerful 9.0 earthquake, the three online reactors were immediately shut down after the shock.  Reactors one through three remained stable until immense flooding disabled the backup generators that were powering the coolant systems.  The reactors began to heat up and meltdown, the government had no choice but to keep what was left of the facility cool by flooding it with seawater, temporarily keeping in the decay heat.  The uranium fuel rods continue to produce decay heat for several days even after the reactor is turned off.  With massive amounts of radiation being released the seawater soon failed to contain the heat.  The remaining water mixed with the overheating metal creating explosive hydrogen gasses, further hindering progress of repair workers and leading to several explosions taking place within the facility.  These unsafe conditions led to the government evacuating civilians within a 12 mile radius of the nuclear plant, emergency personnel worked shifts to reduce exposure to radioactive material as they slowly repaired the damaged facility.  The damaged caused by this disaster may not be apparent until many years in the future, radiation is expected to adversely effect everyone who was exposed.  Much of the seawater used to cool the failing reactors was simply returned to the ocean, in addition massive amounts of radiation was discharged into the air, widespread concerns are emerging about Japanese land being contaminated by this radiation.  Initial reports from TEPCO are that around 900PBq (petabecquerels) however because of a lack of transparency within TEPCO, it is very likely that these numbers are unrealistically low estimates.  in December of 2011 TEPCO announced the plant was being put into cold shutdown.  Because their country is scarce in domestic energy such as oil and coal the Japanese government hailed nuclear energy as a way to achieve energy independence.  The governments is now reversing its policies, in the past Japan planned to power much of their country on nuclear energy, now they plan to shutdown all 50 of their nuclear plants by 2040.  Public opinion now demands safety over energy independence, Japan is now looking towards futures in solar energy, they hope these new technologies can yield enough power to replace their Nuclear plants that will soon be decommissioned.  overall this switch will be costly, Japan was headed towards a goal of powering half of their country with nuclear energy by 2030, reversing this deadline may prove to too costly to follow through with.

The functioning Fukushima Daiichi power plant

Workers wearing radiation suits repair the damaged plant

The Plant is severely damaged

Works Cited:

• World Nuclear Association,  http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/fukushima_accident_inf129.html
• The Guardian,   http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/19/japan-2040-nuclear-power-exit
• BBC news,   http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-19645305
• the Epoch times,   http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/world/why-tepco-failed-to-prevent-fukushima-disaster-302792.html

In class last week we again used our Lego mind-storm robotics but this time it was not a car but instead was hooked up to a pulley system.  The Robot’s sensors allowed us to record how much energy it’s battery used while lifting different weights.  we started off with a heavy amount and worked our way down.  our robots mechanical arm was connected to a string which ran to pulley.  We worked with partners and ran 3 tests each time with a different amount of weight.  The results clearly show that the more weight the robot lifted the more energy was discharged from the battery.  This experiment showed how energy is used to defy the forces of gravity.  The power from the battery was transferred into potential energy as the weight was lifted, some energy was lost however, when it was turned into heat.

a simple pulley rigged as it was during the experiment

The Results:

Run I           Run II         Run III

Mass:                            250g              200g             150g

Rotations:                    1155               1297              1186

Battery discharge:     27mv              19.3mv           14mv

speed:                           32.49rpm      77.70rpm      82.12rpm

Time:                            5.92s               2.78s              2.40s

Acceleration:            5.48rpm/s    27.92rpm/s    34.12rpm/s

Today America is facing record gas prices.  Domestic energy companies are coming up with ways to drill more natural gas in the U.S.  Although it is important to lessen our dependance on foreign energy, the government must be able to regulate drilling so it does not yield unpleasant consequences for citizens.  One practice of drilling that has come under much scrutiny recently is hydraulic fracturing or “hydrofracking.”  The idea dates back about 150 years but it would not been put into widespread use in America till the 1949 when Halliburton oil company received a patent for hydrofracking.  The process of hydrofracking is complex but basically it involves water and chemicals being used to get more natural gas from deep underground shale deposits.  The fractures in the shale get filled with water and chemicals while the drilling happens leading to more natural gas being collected.  This technology has yields around 14% of American natural gas, however effective it is there are questions being asked by skeptics.  Because this practice requires drilling past the underground water table there is a danger that the chemicals involved in hydrofracking may end up in public drinking water.  This is very concerning considering that many of the chemicals used in this process are extremely toxic even in small amounts.  Another unsettling study links extensive hydrofracking to a raise in seismic activity.  If this practice does indeed result in earthquakes and poisoned water then the risks seem to outweigh the benefits.  In new york hydrofracking has been put on hold, the public has demanded that extensive studies be done before proceeding, New York’s health commissioner plans to examine the possibility of water contamination as a result of excessive hydrofracking.  Both the oil companies and the public have agreed to these studies.  Once the results of these studies are unveiled the matter should be settled once and for all.

A Hydrofracking site in Lancaster Pennsylvania

Sources:

• http://energy.wilkes.edu/pages/203.asp

• http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/oil-and-gas/news-natural-gas-it-answer-and-what-cost?image=0

• http://www.hres.org/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=78%3Ashale-gas-hydrofracking-and-man aging -risk-&catid=54%3Aopinion&Itemid=64

• http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/21/nyregion/new-york-states-decision-on-hydrofracking-will -await-health-review.html

Due to the sharp increase in the price of gas, car companies are now being urged to provide cars that are more efficient.  Consumers today are less concerned with the size and power of their vehicles, instead they are demanding better gas mileage.  The Obama administration is requiring all new cars to have more efficient miles per gallon by the year 2025.  Currently companies are required to produce cars with at least 27 mpg.  By 2025 Obama hopes cars will have a minimum of 54.5 mpg.  There are many ways the auto industry is making more efficient cars, using lighter materials and getting more power from engines.  Many past models of car used steel in the body, newer models use aluminum and carbon fiber to greatly cut down the overall weight of the car.  So far these lightweight cars do not seem to be any less safe than their steel counterparts.  Due to these advances the average price of cars has risen, this means that efficient car makers are being rewarded for their efforts.  Overall improvements made in efficient car manufacturing have benefited both the consumer and the producers, generating more income for car companies and saving drivers money at the pump.

Americans are fed up with paying too much at the pump

Sources:

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

• http://eenews.net/public/climatewire/2012/09/27/2

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