Sustainable: Tenable

Ahh, always so good to escape the classroom. On this occasion we were going to the MIT Plasma Science & Fusion Center. Though we seem to have miscalculated on the T stop that would best land us in the right neighborhood. It was a weird walk…

http://pixelcurse.com/photography/18-gorgeous-footprints-photographs

Albeit, not anywhere as dramatic as I just made it. Good times.

Okay, so after our jaunt to MIT, a very nice grad student walked us through the basics of the Alcator Project. Alcator C-Mod is a tokamak which is a toroidal (doughnut) shape that contains plasma. It looks like this:

http://www.generalfusion.com/magnetic_fusion.html

Plasma is the fourth state of matter. Fusion is the combining of two “light” elements (in this case, deuterium and tritium) to create a heavier element which creates nuclear energy. For Alcator C-Mod, the grad student told us that they only add deuterium to the tokamak  because they are examining the behavior of the plasma, instead of actually producing nuclear energy.

And why you ask?

Because nuclear fusion has the potential to produce large amounts of clean energy, though scientists have been working on this technology for a long time.

To push forward, a new project called ITER which stands for the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor has been created. ITER will hopefully produce a huge amount of clean power. The structure is similar to Alcator but larger:

http://www.odec.ca/projects/2004/yeun4d0/public_html/ITER.htm

Here’s the website where you can read about ITER:

ITER: the world’s largest Tokamak.

Here is more information from Wikipedia, if you’re super-interested:

ITER – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

One more important note: the budget for this type of research has been drastically cut which affects all of the tokamaks, but especially our local one at MIT. The research they do is vital to learning how plasma performs during fusion. Here is the link to the petition website, please sign it to protest the funding cut!

The letter « Stand With Science.

Dear readers,

Today we begin this portion of the post with a subject that has surfaced more than once in this little teeny blog: nuclear power.

This particular article contains videos touting some of the arguments made for both keeping open and closing the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant in NY.

SO, dear readers, to Youtube!

http://www.smilorama.com/super-girls-unleashed/

I had to mouse around to find some more interesting videos other than Fox News clips…(uh, thanks, but no thanks).

Then I found these:

Indian Point Engineers – YouTube.

Now, I thought it was certainly a good shtick for keeping the plant open…but then I made one more click and I ended up with this look:

http://scienceblogs.com/thoughtfulanimal/2010/05/dog_personalities.php

All kudos go to this video:

Mayor Giuliani and Indian Point – YouTube.

Notice any similarities?

That’s right, kids. The scripts are pretty much the very same commercial, with different actors. Oh, and guess whose Youtube channel I found those little gems on…

(Drum roll please.)

Indian Point’s Youtube channel!

(YAY Propaganda! )

Onward I clicked and I found an excellent little video from CNN:

Tour Indian Point nuclear power plant – YouTube.

Now, according to the Wikipedia article, Indian Point has had leakage issues before but what this CNN clip revealed was that scientist believe that this plant stands on an active seismic area. (Read: risk of earthquakes…right under a nuclear power plant.) Though the higher-ups claim that the plant is built to withstand a magnitude 6 earthquake, Fukushima Daiichi had all kinds of backups for such “unexpected” events.

ALSO, the plant only provides about 25% of the city’s energy. Now, earlier in the blog we discussed Demand Response. Hmm, sounds like there might be a way to figure out how to cut down on energy use so that the plant could be shut down.

Indian Point Energy Center – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Feel free to poke around that Wikipedia article, and then draw your own conclusions!

…Global warming, that is. Or at least I can’t, personally. I’ve taken one too many science classes about the environment to even consider that global warming doesn’t exist.

However.

There are people out there that do not believe global warming is happening.

This post is for them, about what they say, who they are and how on earth they think that global warming isn’t a real phenomenon.

(Actually, I’ll be answering everything but the last one…that one is a mystery but I have my suspicions….)

http://www.gifsoup.com/view/1929105/fox-licking-window.html

Yup.

In any case, I found a fabulous website that lists both the reasons that global warming deniers cite for global warming not existing/not being an issue, here are a few gems :

#61: Scientists can’t even predict weather.

Reality check: Weather and climate are different; climate predictions do not need weather detail.

#67: The greenhouse effect has been falsified.

Reality check: The greenhouse effect is standard physics and has been confirmed by observations.

#134 Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup.

Reality check: By breathing out we are only returning the air to the same CO2 that existed before.

Feel free to read all 173 reasons here:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

I furthered my search to see just who was making these arguments and I found this little gem courtesy of The Huffington Post; which cites that currently only 57% of Americans believe that global warming really exists.

Scary.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/22/most-dangerous-global-war_n_330614.html

You’ll see some unfortunately familiar faces in the corresponding slide show.

http://www.americantimes.org/blog/2012/01/31/sarah-palin-wants-back-into-the-spotlight-but-only-on-the-losing-side/

Gosh darn scary.

Despite the shivers of contempt flowing down my spine at the likes of Palin’s Alaskan crazy mug, I soldiered on with my research. Turns out, there was a surprise guest in the global warming denier line-up:

Michael Crichton!

http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/25/newt-in-1996-lets-build-a-real-jurassic-park-have-sex-in-space/

YES, the very man who brought us Jurassic Park. He doesn’t believe that global warming exists and he’s done what every best-selling author has done when they have feelings.

He wrote a book about it. This book was entitled “State of Fear.” Crichton discusses the environment in this article with ABC News:

Michael Crichton Takes on Global Warming

Ta da. From the man who wrote a whole book about a virus strain wiping out human kind. No global warming for him, folks.

http://harvardmedicine.hms.harvard.edu/bulletin/spring2009/lostworld.php

Dear Ladies & Gentlemen,

Walking into class on Tuesday I spotted a man with a large beard and a plaid shirt. Now, I knew we were supposed to have a guess speaker, but I was surprised. This was the man who was supposed to be speaking to us about electricity?

Boy was that a dumb thought.

I seriously should have known much better. I blame the plaid shirt. I find plaid very soothing. It is a pattern typically worn by my grandfather, my father and almost every. Single. One. Of my hometown dude friends. Don’t judge, I’m from a small town.

http://www.layoutsparks.com/1/78578/red-plaid-design-material.html

There, isn’t that nice? Soothing?

It’s okay if you say no, because I don’t care. But I do promise no more plaid swatches. For the rest of this post. Maybe. IF you’re good.

Here’s the reason I should not have been lulled by the Plaid:

http://stonington.patch.com/listings/watrous-bros-machine-shop

In case you can’t read that sign, it says “Watrous Machine Shop.” The owner is a brilliant machinist named Brian. He wears a lot of plaid and is one of the smartest men I have ever met. He even built this thing:

|||==|||==||| Don’t forget to check out the Ice Rescue Machine Video Clip —–.

Seriously, dude can fix anything. Hence all the dinosaur-like machinery lying around outside the shop.

SO, you can see my mistake in feeling lulled by the plaid shirt. This gentleman was about to shock our socks off.

He introduced himself as Tom Vales. He cites a life-long fascination with electricity, and brought with him a self-made Tesla coil. It looked rather like this:

http://señorcreativo.es/handout-notebooks-of-nikola-tesla/

Only appeared to be made with a white plastic bucket. The basic premise of the Tesla Coil (invented by Nikola Tesla around 1891) is a wireless source of electric energy that could be used without having to plug in electronic devices (such as lamps).

I know, right?

Read the Wikipedia article here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_coil

Tom also builds something called a Mendocino Motor and sells both the kits and the finished products online here:

http://stelmos-fire.com/mendocinomotor.html

Weird birthday gift for the person that has everything?

http://www.defectiveyeti.com/archives/cat_observations.html

Perhaps not.

In any case, the Mendocino Motor is a little solar motor, suspended by magnets. It runs as long as there is solar energy to power it. To quote Mr. Vales’s website:

“The Mendocino motor is a solar powered magnetically levitated motor.”

Quite an odd little thing, but a great example of solar power effectiveness.

The next motor Tom presented to us was a Stirling Engine:

http://www.icefoundry.org/how-stirling-engine-works.php

Basically this engine runs off of a difference in temperature, which causes the pistons to work and thereby runs the motor. It can work with either hot or cold temperatures, but whenever the temperature source reaches room temperature the motor no longer runs.

You can read more here:

http://www.icefoundry.org/how-stirling-engine-works.php

Finally, he presented us with the Peltier generator. Here’s an excellent picture explaining how it works off of temperature difference, similar to the Stirling Engine:

http://www.huimao.com/about/show.php?lang=en&id=4

Basically, Tom Vales likes electricity.

The amazing part about all these motors is that they are not recent inventions by any means. This implies that the technology to create sustainable energy has been around far longer than many scientists would like to admit.

Moral of the story: Be curious!

And wear plaid!

http://toolmonger.com/tag/new-yankee-workshop/

The theme of the week seems to be based on solar panels, as today I’ll be discussing a little bit about the Solyndra scandal that occurred in 2011.

The Solyndra company was based out of Fremont, California. You can read more on the company here:

Solyndra- Wikipedia

Basically, the company was marketing a type of solar panel that was cylindrical. This allowed the panel to no only absorb direct light, but indirect (diffuse) light and reflected light as well. That means that these cylinders could generate more power than traditional panels.They looked like this:

Now, the company needed money and it got money.

Seriously.

In March of 2009, the company received $535 million dollars to build the plants that manufactured the cylinders.

However, two years later in August of 2011, Solyndra fired over a thousand employees without severance pay. Then they shut down all the manufacturing and production plants.

“Regulatory and policy uncertainties in recent months created significant near-term excess supply and price erosion. Raising incremental capital in this environment was not possible. This was an unexpected outcome and is most unfortunate.” stated the President and CEO of the company, Brian Harrison.

This exerpt came from a message posted in September on the Solyndra company website:

Solyndra Goodbye Message

Here is a video with a very passionate man describing what is apparently wrong with the world, but I have to admit, he’s got some really good points.

Solyndra: Real Scandal is Dirty Energy Subsidies

What do you think? Is it wise for the government to create subsidies for companies? Is Solyndra just a worst-case scenario?

Where did all that money go?

This week in class we examined teeny tiny solar panels, also known as photovoltaics.

I did not know an awful lot about photovoltaics, but here’s what we’re basically talking about:

Admittedly this is a particularly picturesque view of photovoltaic panels. I don’t know where this little house is, but I totally want to own it someday.

Oh and the panel we used was about 3″ by 4.”

So the experiment examined the different ways that the photovoltaic panel absorbs light. We tried placing a light close to the panel at first, and then measured the absorption. We then moved the light further and further from the panel. We reran the computer tests, and recorded how effective the photovoltaic was. Here are the results:(take a look at the top graph)

Voltage Readings & Color Bar Chart

Turns out, the closer the light was to the photovoltaic, the more power was generated. (Not much of a surprise there.)

Next we took colored lenses and placed them over the photovoltaic. This changed the color of the light that filtered through. This is important because as we know that colors fall along different wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum. Therefore, some colors have more energy than others. We measured this concept using the photovoltaic panel. If you look once again at the graph entitled “Color Lenses v. No Color” you can see that the only color used that came close to (and slightly surpassed) the white light (all colors) absorption was the neon green lens.

The colors dark blue and medium gray were not nearly as effective in providing energy. I suspect that if we had used either a red or orange lens, the rates of absorption might have changed once again. This information is important because it helps us know that there are certain wavelengths of light that make the photovoltaic more effective and therefore a better, more practical power source.

The topic this week, boys and girls, is fracking. I know what you’re thinking. It sounds….dirty.

Or maybe that’s just what I thought when I first heard this word. My second thought, Could it be a possible Scrubs misquote?

http://www.tv.com/people/donald-faison/photos/262784/

Maybe not.

But as I was driving around town during Winter Break, I happened to catch this little piece on NPR. (For those of you philistines who don’t know, NPR stands for National Public Radio.)

Fracking Byproducts May Be Linked To Ohio Quakes : NPR.

The interview is less than 5 minutes long. Just listen to it, kids. Also, if you don’t know about NPR, take an opportunity to peruse the website and the fabulous productions they offer.  I find Garrison Keillor particularly soothing. (And charmingly odd.)

http://thelope.com/2005/09/prairie-lope-companion.html

When the fracking topic popped up in class, I already knew a little about it thanks to the broadcast. And I knew that there were possible down sides to this practice. Once again, in true college-student style, I went to youtube where I found this gem:

60 Minutes Video Piece on Dangers of Natural Gas Fracking – YouTube.

Now since this is the very first video in the search results, I think a lot of my fellow classmates will uncover it with ease. This is a good one too:

Fracking – Explained In Two Minutes – YouTube.

I hope you enjoyed the indeterminable accent of the narrator as much as I did. So here’s what we know about fracking:

1) Natural gas could relieve our dependence on foreign oil, because (as the 60 minutes piece notes) apparently we have enough natural gas here in the US to be the equivalent of “two Saudi Arabia’s worth of oil in the form of natural gas.” So, it’s immediately available and abundant.

2) The process of fracking extracts the natural gas. However, there are clearly issues of danger in the extraction process.

Additional concerns include:

Do Not Drink This Water! – YouTube.

Please note: I question Josh Fox’s sanity when he asks, “Can I try it?”

http://www.barfworld.com/html/IPEzine/IPEZ_072010.html

Why, sir? Why?!

This excerpt came from the documentary “Gasland” by Josh Fox which examines the fracking process and the environmental after-effects. As you can see by the image below, this documentary might be worth a watch, especially if you want to know the dirty secrets of fracking.

http://imaginepeace.com/archives/13304

So, at minimum, fracking can contaminate water supplies, run-off of chemicals can kill livestock, and drilling into faults can cause earthquakes.

Here’s the big question: even though natural gas is plentiful for us here in the US, is it worth the risks that arise to both the human race and the earth in favor of attempting to reduce our use of oil?

What do you think: Fracking? Tilting at windmills? Large solar panels?

Hey guys, it’s story time.

This is the happy story of my first vehicle. Now let’s be clear, when I was a newly-licensed perky little driver I drove a couple of my family’s vehicles…mostly into the ground. But then, I moved out and bought my first real vehicle.

It was mine. All Mine. Muahahahaha.

http://www.corbisimages.com/stock-photo/rights-managed/42-19549335/girl-driving-toy-truck-over-peas-and

I could drive all over the place and never once have to run errands for my parents.

I did the normal amount of research for a 19 year old.

Since I had no credit, getting a loan was out of the question. That with left me with a narrow range of affordability. My first family vehicle was a beat-up pickup truck, and I loved it. Except for one thing.

The engine. The little tiny automatic four cylinder engine. Every time I got on the highway, it was pedal to the metal and I still felt like if a semi came along, I was done for.

http://bowtielaw.wordpress.com/2011/02/24/

So naturally I wanted a larger engine. More power. I realized that this would cost me. A larger engine meant more gasoline burned. I now had several requirements on my list for a new vehicle now. Let’s review:

1.) Pickup Truck

2.) Cheap- less than $3000

3.) Low Miles

4.) Standard Transmission

5.) Decent gas mileage

Now I spent a great deal of time in two places: Craigslist, and Kelley Blue Book.

For those of you out there who aren’t aware, Kelley Blue Book is a website that will tell you the specifics of vehicles you’re looking to purchase. It can be found here:

Official Kelley Blue Book Values You Can Trust From kbb.com – Kelley Blue Book.

I selected dozens of makes and models, closely examining the differences in values and gas mileage. I rejected many: Nissan- too expensive, Toyota- no truck big enough or small enough, Ford-nothing stylish…And then I found it.

A 2000 Dodge Dakota with 92,000 miles on it. The fuel economy was only slightly suspect: according to Kelley Blue Book, it got a whopping 21 miles per gallon highway and an annoying 15 miles per gallon city. All for $2100.

I probably could have done better but I was young and in love.

http://www.a1autohawaii.com/vehicle-details/6539472fe8656e4f8a1df5da7c78f41b/2000+dodge+dakota+slt+plus+2-door+truck.html

I drove an hour to examine the truck. When the man selling it offered me a test drive, I climbed right into the driver’s seat. When I turned over the engine, it roared to life with the kind of sound a big cat makes deep in a jungle.

http://wallpaper-million.com/Animals/Cats-wallpapers/Roaring-Leopard-wallpaper_19.html

By the time I left, I could recite the specs of the engine on command: 3.9L V6 Magnum 5 speed Manual Transmission.

I bought it.

Now here’s the moral of the story, boys and girls, bad gas mileage is bad news. I’d like to think that I get more like 25 mpg with this truck but the truth is, there’s no evidence to back that up.

Let’s theorize about this truck for a minute in terms of money and dependence on fossil fuels.*

*Disclaimer: Math is not my strong suit.

During the summer, my job is 26 miles round-trip from my house. Multiply by 6 days a week, we’re looking at a total of 156 miles driven for work.

If I started work in mid-May and go through mid-October there were 22 weeks in my work season. For the sake of round numbers, we’ll say I go 150 miles a week so I fill up every two weeks.

If we give my truck the generous combined mileage of 20 mpg, with the tank holding 15 gallons that means I can go 300 miles on a full tank before hitting the pumps again. That means 11 fill-ups just to commute to work.

At the time of last summer gas was a hideous average of $3.15/gal. Therefore an empty tank cost me $47.  That means it cost me $517 to get to work.

Just to get to work.

http://www.covinoandrich.com/81711-show-recap

Now how many gallons of gas did my summer work life use up? 165.

We all know that there is much fun to be had during summer if you’re a college student. I drove far more than my mere 150 work miles a week. I might have even conquered twice that in some weeks. So when I wonder where all the money I earned throughout the summer went, it’s not hard to imagine a significant chunk went straight into my gas tank.

http://banmilleronbusiness.com/node/1747

Let’s make the picture bigger.

Now my truck has over 135,000 miles on it which means I have driven 43,000 miles. That means 143 tanks of gas. That translates into 2,149 gallons of gas. At an optimistic average of $3.00/gal, this truck has cost me $6450 in gas alone since I purchased it 5 years ago.

Now my head is spinning. Ow.

I’m about to graduate and this might be the year I finally trade in the truck while it still has trade-in value. So the question is: What do I get now?

The good news is that there are many vehicles that either get very high gas mileage or rely on electricity available on today’s market. Let’s take a look, shall we?

First, the electric cars!

For a while last year, Hulu bombarded me with this particular ad, which I found disturbing:

People Person (:30): Toyota Prius Family – YouTube.

Because a giant person made of other people is CREEPY, Toyota. CREEPY.

But the newest commercial being shoved in my face is about the little Nissan Leaf. Yet another 100% electric car, but I take offense to the moment where “O” is represented by a pregnant woman’s stomach. That’s at least plus two, Nissan. And bearing children isn’t “everything.” Feminist rant aside, here’s the commercial anyway:

Nissan LEAF: The Value of Zero – YouTube.

Now, these are the two types of electric cars being widely advertised right now. But automakers aren’t ready to go fossil-fuel-free just yet. There are lists of enticing vehicles boasting more than 35 mpg. I found one such list on the governmental Fuel Economy website.

(The entire list can be viewed here: Best and Worst Fuel Economy.)

Now for purely gasoline powered vehicles, this was on the top of the list:

http://www.newcars.com/honda/crz

This is the 2012 Honda CR-Z. It boasts a combined 37 mpg, according to the Fuel Economy website. Note the distinctly Prius-like body style.

Next down on the Fuel Economy list was this car:

http://stwot.motortrend.com/files/2011/07/2012-scion-iq-front-left-623x389.jpg

This is the little-teeny 2012 Scion iQ. Same combined mpg as the Honda, only smaller.  Doesn’t it look like something you’ve seen before? Just maybe?

Here, let me refresh your memory:

http://www.jokeroo.com/pictures/car/carlsson-2012-smart-fortwo.html

Ohh riiiight. That, my friends, is the Smartcar. Hmm. So far, we’ve seen two of the most fuel efficient gas-powered vehicles on the 2012 market, and they look like vehicles we’ve seen before.

It’s not about looks, luckily. There is third type of vehicle on the popular market for those searching for something new. A gas-electric hybrid. Here’s an example:

2012 Chevy Volt | Electric Car | Chevrolet.

This link takes you to the Chevy Volt website. This is an interesting site to peruse, especially because the tagline is “Somebody has to be first.”

Now this implies that Chevy is at the forefront of the gas-electric hybrid market, however I want to point out briefly that the gas-electric hybrid is sort of a fence-straddling vehicle. It might be an excellent stepping stone for those who are not entirely sold on the concept of the electric car.

While these evolving efforts by automakers are encouraging, there is still a downside to the consumers who buy into new technology.

Currently there are very, very few mechanics trained to fix electric car systems. At this time, if something goes wrong, the primary option is to return the car for the service at the dealer which is both expensive and time-consuming.

There is a learning curve to this new technology, and until the automobile service industry catches up, the consumers who purchase electric or electric hybrids are going to be the ones paying for their responsible choices.

Now please don’t let this dissuade any of you out there who desire electric vehicles, just something more to think about as automakers embrace changing attitudes about our environment.

Happy car shopping!

So during the construction of this blog post, I’ll admit, I found myself overwhelmed by the websites attempting to explain word-by-word how demand response works.

I zoned out over all the technical language.

I might even have taken a nap.

http://www.scenicreflections.com/media/488316/Alaska_sleeping_on_my_computer_Wallpaper/

Ahem.

But after I righted myself and rubbed the keyboard marks off my face, I did what most college students do when confused by technical jargon.

I went to Youtube.

There, I found a number of videos that helped explain exactly what all the fuss was about.

This was a good one:

Demand Response- Integrating Customers to Smart Grid – YouTube.

Turns out, demand response is a technique for avoiding brownouts during peak energy usage times. The basics are as follows:

1) Company creates a plan during which they can reduce the amount of energy they use. This can be as simple as turning the thermostat up or down, or reducing the number of lights in use.

If called upon, the company can exact this plan for a specified amount of time that ranges (as one of the oh-so-helpful videos explained) from 6 hours to 24 hours.

2) Company uses plan when called upon and receives monetary benefits for reducing their use of energy.

Hold on now.

My eco-friendly friends are telling me to unplug every item in my teeny tiny apartment when I’m not using it and no one pays me to do it. Where’s my rebate check for having reduced-usage lightbulbs and keeping my heat so low that penguins could live in my kitchen?

http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/animals/birds/rockhopper-penguin/

Hmm?

Well, as a mini-consumer, I’m just doing my part. I’m down with that. However, for those of you fellow city-dwellers, have you ever seen the skyline at night and wondered:

Who pays to keep all those buildings lit up?

http://www.aguntherphotography.com/usa_east/boston/Boston-Skyline.html

Eek.

Imagine if each building in Boston enrolled in a demand response program, the results would be that not only (ideally) would there be no brownouts during demand surges but also energy would be conserved because additional power generators would not have to be activated during peak hours.

And turns out there’s a company right in Boston helping facilitate demand response:

Demand Response with EnerNOC’s Network Operations Center – YouTube.

Now, this is great. It’s certainly a step in the right direction…but after watching this video, I had some questions:

Automated Demand Response Program – YouTube.

$46,000 in incentives?! To turn off their fountains?

It hit me that this particular video was an advertisement for the company that runs the upgrades for a demand response system. But surely these companies make a profit by being the middle man in the system. It made me wonder: how much do companies participating in demand response pay the in-between companies that facilitate it?

More important yet: why can’t the companies who enact demand response plans use less energy every day?

I guess having the fountains on for special events is more important.