Solyndra Scandal

Their Proven Performance/ Technology and Products

As of today, Solyndra’s cylindrical design offers proven reliability and superior performance. Each panel is made up of 40 individual modules, wired in parallel for high current, which capture sunlight across a 360-degree photovoltaic surface capable of converting direct, diffuse and reflected sunlight into electricity. Using innovative cylindrical copper indium gallium dieseline (CIGS modules) and thin-film technology.

Solyndra systems are designed to be able to provide the lowest system installation costs on a per watt basis for the commercial rooftop market. More than 1000 Solyndra systems are installed around the world, representing nearly 100 Megawatts.

Lightweight: Low Distributed Load of 2.8 lbs. per Square Foot

The Solyndra system is extremely lightweight and modules are spaced within the panel frame offering unique airflow properties. This eliminates the need for expensive mounting hardware and ballast. The low roof weight is ideal for older buildings and “value-engineered buildings” not designed to carry a heavy rooftop load, and often Solyndra is the only solar solution that works for these installations.

“Solyndra Scandal”. What went wrong? 

President Obama praised the company, Solyndra, for its advanced technology during a visit in 2010.

However, back in 2011, Solyndra said its business had run into trouble because of difficult global business conditions, including slowing demand for solar panels, and stiff competition.

Solyndra filed a bankruptcy protection on August 31 2011, laying off 1,100 employees, and shutting down all its operations and manufacturing.

In the case of Solyndra, some experts said that regardless of the competition, the company’s unique designs, which were expensive to manufacture, were to blame for its failure.

The government calculated premiums for the guarantees, essentially a loan fee based on the risk of default, but it picks up the cost of the premiums for the companies in the subsidy program. By that yardstick, it spent $2.4 billion in credit subsidies for the program.

Solyndra’s troubles have been growing for some time. Republican budget-cutters in Congress have viewed it as a model of poor government investment.

Solyndra was promised loans of up to $535 million under a guarantee program authorized by Congress as part of the stimulus package. The Energy Department has made more than 40 promises of guarantees, of which Solyndra was the first. It has committed $18 billion in guarantees and expects to allocate several billion dollars more by the time the program finishes at the end of September.

However, on September 2011, Soyndr was deeply investigated by the FBI.  More importantly, federal agents visited the homes of the founder of Sylandra and the company’s CEO, they examined computer files and documents.

Policymakers absolutely must study what went wrong at Solyndra in business terms, but it is also imperative that they not overlook the strengths and opportunities of the emerging “clean” economy, lest America fall further behind in this crucial sector of the global economy.

Works Cited

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-muro/solyndra-solar-bankruptcy-solar-power-_b_947046.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/01/business/energy-environment/solyndra-solar-firm-aided-by-federal-loans-shuts-doors.html?pagewanted=all

http://www.solyndra.com/technology-products/

Generator Experiment

Creating Voltage 

In this experiment we used the following objects; one generator, (magnet that moves back and forth inside a coil of wire), one voltage probe (to measure voltage), one NXT adaptor, Labview VI and an excel sheet to organize all of our data into a scatter graph.

The point of this lab is to show how to create electricity, by shaking the flashlight. If you don’t shake it, would not create any voltage. The flashlight has wires attached that are sticking out, and we connect it to the voltage probe, that is connected to the NXT and the NXT is connected to the computer with an usb cord. The more the magnetic feels the more electricity we created.

First we start by using the LabView program, it waits one second to take a data. For 30 seconds it will record a voltage.

We shack the flashlight, and the voltages are automatically recorded in the Labview file and in the excel file.  We do this 4 times and once we start shaking it we start creating energy, we have to keep track of how many times we shack it. However, some voltages are negative and some are positive, and that depends on the magnetic energy whether it decreases or increases.

We first shacked it 32 times and it created 12 voltages. Then, we shacked it 35 times and it created 77 voltages. The third time we shacked it 46 time and it created 89 voltages and the fourth time we shacked it 98 times at a really fast speed and it created a number of 80 voltages.

We record the amount of voltages made in the excel sheet. We added all of the numbers and then we squared all the voltages in the excel file and then we sum them up and that gave us an idea of how much electricity we created.

    The scatter graph shows that the more shakes the greater voltages are. The x axis shows the number of shakes, and the y axis shows the voltage made.  The line illustrates the more of number of shakes the greater we can see it increases.

“Mass Pulley Experiment”

Force and Energy, Velocity and Acceleration, and power 

In this lab experiment we used the Lego Windstorm motor to lift weights with a pulley. We used this, to explore Newton’s 2nd Law, the law of conservation of energy, velocity and acceleration and power.

The point of the experiment is to find the speed, acceleration, time and the amount of battery discharge that the robot uses.

By setting the power level of the motor, this will set the toque on the motor wheel which will result in a particular force used to lift the masses.  The higher the power level, the greater the force will be.

To find this data we use two methods, by doing it a few times with the power level fixed but changing the mass and by changing the power and then keeping the mass constant.

1.

Exploring Newtons’s 2nd law, F=ma, BY KEEPING THE power level fixed and changing the mass. We ran it 3 times.

In this case the power level is stated in %, so it was fixed at 75%.

And yes the acceleration varies with the power level. We can see in the graph bellow because if the power level decreases the mass increases.

Power level %         Mass (kg) 

75                                    0.25

75                                   0.18

75                                   0.12

75                                   0.07

Then, we keep the mass the same and change the power level.Mass (kg)

Mass (kg)      Power level %

0.07                    60

0.07                    45

0.07                    30

0.07                    20

And these are the results for acceleration that we get for each trial and they certainly change.

Acceleration vs Force, here I show how we use a different power level % and also get a different acceleration (RPM/s)

Power level %                Acceleration RPM/s) 

75                                            46.96716

60                                             29.09715

45                                             16.62116

30                                             6.525699

20                                             2.437297

2.  We now will explore the Law of Conservation of energy by  computing:

,  with h as the height that the center of mass of the weights travel.

With the power level fixed, study how the battery energy drainage changes as a function of mass.  Since the energy of the battery is converted to the potential energy of the masses, you would expect that the greater the masses, the greater is the battery drainage.  However, the battery level reading is not that accurate, so you should repeat your measurements several times and look at the average battery drainage as a function of mass.

These are the results in the scatter graph bellow.

3. Now we calculate the average power used by the motor which equals:

,

Power Level %          Power= mgh/t (W)

75                                        0.09292694760

60                                         0.07127272730

45                                          0.055675362

30                                          0.034885579

20                                          0.021346966

The graph bellow shows the results. We also added a linear trend line with an equating and R2, the curve is exactly linear.

Mass Pulley Experiment

In this lab experiment we used the Lego Windstorm motor to lift weights with a pulley. The point of the experiment is to find the speed, acceleration, time and the amount of battery discharge that the robot uses. By setting the power level of the motor will set the toque on the motor wheel which will result in a particular force used to lift the masses.  The higher the power level, the greater the force will be. To find this data we use two methods, by doing it a few times with the power level fixed but changing the mass and by changing the power and then keeping the mass constant.

We first used  Newton’s 2^nd Law i.e.F= ma by keeping the power level fixed and changing the mass.

The acceleration defiantly changes with the mass, and you could see this with the results of this chart bellow.

Here we used the power constant as 75 and we used different wights (mass)

Trial #1:

Speed (RPM): 87.56

Battery Discharge(mv): -14

Mass(kg): 0.25

Time(s): 2.71

Acceleration(RPM/s): 32.34

Then we changed the power level but we left the mass the same

Speed (RPM): 91.56

Battery Discharge (mv): 97

Mass(kg) : 0.2

Power level: 75

Time:2.61

Acceleration(RPM/s): 25.03

We can see that since the mass is the same (0.2) while changing the power level in three trials 75,50 and 100. Each trial’s acceleration depends in its speed.

Natural gas hydraulic fracturing (hydrofracking)

Hydraulic Fracturing & Water Contamination

Hydraulic fracturing or fracking are natural gas extraction employed in deep natural gas well drilling. Once a well is drilled, millions of gallons of water, sand and proprietary chemicals are injected, under high pressure, into a well. The pressure fractures the shale and props open fissures that enable natural gas to flow more freely out of the well.

A loophole in the Safe Drinking Water Act exempts hydraulic fracturing from regulation, despite the threat to drinking water supplies. Unfortunately, Hydraulic fracturing has been linked to contaminated drinking water in communities around the country.

Slick water hydrofracking is different from conventional natural gas drilling in a couple of ways.

First, slick water hydrofracking uses significantly more water than conventional drilling, as well as a “slick water” mixture that is pumped into the shale to fracture the rock and release the gas.

Second, there is an increased potential for toxicity and its long-term impacts.

Finally, there is the environmental impacts of the drilling: surface and subterranean damage including forestland loss, multiple well sites, groundwater and surface water contamination, habitat and species disturbance, and likely an increased number of access roads to the well sites.

What is the problem?

Slick water hydrofracking involves a process that uses 6-8 million gallons of freshwater per fracking  and sand or other lightweight.

Following the injection of both the water and the propane, several chemical-based additives are used to create a more timely, efficient, and overall more economic process.

Some of the chemical additives frequently used include: diesel fuel, biocides, benzene (an additive to gasoline and industrial solvent), and hydrochloric acid.

Companies employing this method of natural gas extraction have resisted efforts to require disclosure of what chemicals and what amounts they use. In that case, only assuring us they use these  chemicals in “small amounts”.

However, “small amount” is generally unspecific, and some of these chemicals (especially benzene) are harmful at any level of exposure, even toxic at an exposure level of only parts per trillion.

Additionally, how companies are containing the slick water post-fracking varies from company to company, sometimes with a great potential for soil and groundwater contamination.

This matters because if any of these chemicals were to mingle with the water table, under which lies the shale with a layer of bedrock in between, it is possible that people’s drinking water could be affected.

However overall, EPA is working with states and other key stakeholders to help ensure that natural gas extraction does not come at the expense of public health and the environment.

                  The Primary concerns include human and environmental exposure to:

*  Radioactivity that is a physical characteristic of Marcellus shale.

*  The hazardous cocktail of hydro-fracking chemicals injected into the ground.

*  Air pollution from diesel engines.

*  Brine that is 5x saltier than seawater that can damage freshwater streams and lakes.

* Hazardous liquid and solid waste that is stored on- site, transported on public roads, and disposed of at municipal landfills.

Works Cited

http://www.peacecouncil.net/NOON/hydrofrac/HdryoFrac2.htm

http://www.citizenscampaign.org/campaigns/hydro-fracking.asp

http://www.epa.gov/hydraulicfracture/

Ways the Automobile industry is increasing gas milage

Fuel economy standards have been the primary way in which the US has sought to control greenhouse gas emissions for cars and light trucks, which along with other parts of the transportation sector account for about one-third of the nation’s carbon dioxide emissions.

In August 2012, the Obama administration issued new rules that require auto manufacturers to increase the average efficiency of new cars and trucks to 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025.That means cars and trucks that Americans buy in 13 years will be smaller and have turbocharged engines and more assisted-driving features that cut back on trips to the gas pump.

The new technology that’s behind such efficiency gains does cost extra money, fueling another concern about the tougher mileage rules: They’ll force car buyers to pay more out of pocket, whether they want higher mileage or not.

Automakers have been rolling out new technology and other innovations that boost mileage, such as advanced power trains and transmissions and lighter components. Since 2007, the average fuel economy of cars purchased has risen from 20.1 miles per gallon to 23.6 mpg.

The biggest efficiency gains typically occur when automakers retool a model—which typically happens every five years or so—and outfit it with the latest technology. So more big mileage gains will be coming as more models turn over.

Do to this, these new rules, will reduce fuel consumption and cut greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles, it will increase pressure on automakers to develop more alternative-fuel vehicles, such as electric and plug-in hybrid cars, as well as improve the mileage of their mass-market models by developing better engines and using lighter materials.

Currently, auto companies are working toward achieving a 35.5 miles-per-gallon average by 2016. Therefore, the new mileage rules could still end up costing buyers money, as the targets get tougher and automakers end up with little choice but to push customers into expensive high-mileage technology.

Works Cited:

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/f/fuel_efficiency/index.html

http://www.mysanantonio.com/business/article/Auto-industry-revs-up-for-race-to-meet-fuel-3890528.php

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

Robotics Experience/ Measuring Speed and distance

Robotics Experience

In this team exercise, we used the same cars (robots) that we had built last week.  Here we measure the distance of how the wheels travel and the speed of the car.

We measured the diameter of the wheel and computed the circumference of the wheel in meters.

Such as (pie* diameter), and this will equal the circumference.

Circumference

3.14 (wheel diameter ) (m)

3.14 ( 5.5) (.01) = 0.172

Trial #1

Power level of 75

In this first trial, we used a 75 power level with a time of 3 seconds.

The wheel rotation in degrees came out as 1789 and the # of wheels turn was 4.96. The degrees that the wheel rotated is related to the number of turns of the wheel since it used that force to move at that speed.

The time it took for the wheels to turn was 3 seconds, and since there are 1,000 milliseconds in one second therefore it took 3,000 milliseconds for this trial. The distance the car moved was .90 cm.

We then measured the distance with a ruler and it was .85 and compared the actual result of the VI with our measurement and used this formula to get a % error amount.

%Error= Distance (ruler)  –  Distance (computer) / Average = * 100%

90-85/ 87.5=  5  = 0.05* 100%= 0.057

Trial 2

Power level 100

Time:1 sec

# of wheels turn: 2.177

Rotation: 784

Rotation 2 : 792

Distance: 0.39

Estimated distance= 0.37

In this trial we changed the power level so here we used 100 as a power level, and 1 second. The # of wheels turned was 2.177 and the first rotation was 784 and rotation 2= 792. The amount of velocity it used was 0.374. In that case the distance it actually traveled was 0.39 but with the ruler we measured 0.37 so it was close.

37-39=    2/ 38 = 0.05

Trial 3

Time: 1 sec

Power level: 25

Rotation: 349

Rotation 2: 340

Wheel turn: .9694

Distance: 0.16

*Estimated Distance=0.19

In this trial we used a power level of 25 in 2 seconds. It rotated at 349 and the # of wheels turn was .9694. Its distance was 0.16 but the distance we had measured was 0.19.

% error= 19- 16= 3/ 17.5= 0.171

Trial 4

Power level 75

Time 1 sec

Rotation:552

Rotation2= 559

Overall, this was a interesting hands on project since we experienced how speed and distance are related to each other and how it can impact its results and its speed.