Solyndra was a solar energy company that designed and manufactured photovoltaic panels to be installed on rooftops and generate green energy from the sun.  The company was founded in 2005 and first applied for government funding under the Bush administration in 2006.  Eventually, a government loan was awarded under the Obama administration in 2009.  The controversy began in March of 2010 when auditors raised concerns about whether solyndra would be able to continue operating.  Obama was warned about his forthcoming endorsement of Solyndra but decided to support it anyways and use it as a model for clean technology and creation of jobs.  * months later the executives of Solyndra learn that the company is out of money and admit to Obama’s administration that they may have to liquidate the company.  One month later the Department of Energy (DOE) helps Solyndra to refinance and investors add an additional $75 million.  This public financial support proved to be a mistake when Solyndra was forced to shut down in August of 2011, only 6 months after the public investment.  Obviously this entire scandal reflected poorly on the Obama administration.

“Everyone agrees that the world needs safe, clean and affordable energy” -Paul Nahi                                                                                                             CEO of Enphase Energy

In his article in Forbes magazine Nahi explains that as the CEO of a solar technology company he wants an abundance of clean energy more than anyone, but in order to accomplish that goal the renewable energy industry needs financial independence from government.  The suggestion may seem strange considering that between 1994 and 2009 the U.S. oil industry received a total of nearly $450 Billion dollars in subsidies compared to the renewable energy industry, which recieved less than $6 Billion in the same time period.  Eventually, companies receiving government subsidies become too powerful and use that power to perpetuate government financial support.  Nahi argues that healthy companies have sound business models, while unhealthy companies depend too heavily on subsidies and slow the growth of the industry.  A well designed product, “meets the needs of the consumer…(and) will find success in a market economy.  Solar energy is cost effective and in fact cheaper than oil if we remove direct and indirect government subsidies.

References:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/solyndra-scandal-timeline/

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/07/obama-fundraises-with-players-in-solyndra-scandal/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ciocentral/2013/02/14/government-subsidies-silent-killer-of-renewable-energy/

If you pay attention to enviornmental debates then you have likely heard of “fracking”.  Depending on which source you use to learn about hyrdaulic fracturing you will either come to know it as the ultimate answer to our energy crisis, global warming dilemma, and our dependence on foreign oil, or the final trigger to pull that will lead to the destruction of all that is good and natural.  Well this is what i’ve found.

Natural gas is energy efficient and is the cleanest-burning fossil fuel.  We have plenty of access to it in the United States.  In fact, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) the United States contains more than 2,500 trillion cubic feet of recoverable natural gas resources.  Furthermore 33% is held in shale rock formations. Natural gas from shale has grown to 25% of U.S. gas production in just a decade and will be 50% by 2035.  The two processes by which the gas from shale rock is released and captured are known as hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling.  The technology for these two processes have been developed largely in the past decade.

This information is from Chevron.  Now lets look at a different source; say.. I don’t know, maybe one that is not set to make billions of dollars off of hydraulic fracturing…

There are plenty of environmental concerns regarding fracking.  They range from contamination of ground water to pollution of the air, with all kinds of global warming impacts and health concerns in between.  Wildlife have been killed due to contaminated water and private well owners have complained about contamination so why isn’t fracking being outlawed?  Environmental reports have been criticized for being too narrow in scope and it seems the gas and oil industry might have some friends in washington.  According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) “in 2005 hydraulic fracturing was exempted by the U.S. Congress from any regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act”.  Oh, here is a report I thought was interesting:   Apparently in the town of Dimrock, PA there was a report of 13 private wells found to be contaminated with methane. One of the wells exploded!

References:

http://www.americanrivers.org/initiatives/pollution/energy-pollution/?gclid=CM3W24P7yrUCFUhV4AodyWoA-w

http://www.chevron.com/deliveringenergy/naturalgas/shalegas/?utm_campaign=Energy_Sources_-_Shale_Gas_English&utm_medium=cpc&utm_source=google&utm_term=Hydraulic_Fracturing

http://www.surviveclimatechange.com/fracking.html

One of the biggest factors the average consumer considers when looking to buy a car is gas mileage.  There are many factors that contribute to how many miles per gallon a car gets and the automobile industry has made several efforts to improve gas mileage in response to consumer demand.  One important factor is the weight of a vehicle.  Obviously, the more that a car weighs the more likely it is that that car will have poor gas mileage.  Furthermore, the average weight of cars on the road in the united states has increased drastically over the past half century with the introduction of the suv and ever more powerful engines.  Another factor is displacement. Displacement is the volume of air your engine can consume in a single revolution.  This volume can vary depending on the size of the engine in the car.  A four-cylinder engine may consume 2 liters of air or less per revolution whil a V-8 might consume 4.5 liters or more per revolution.  More air means more fuel.

Most people know that having tires properly inflated is a very important factor in fuel economy.  However, the relationship between tires and fuel economy is slightly more complicated.  Tire manufacturers are constantly looking for ways to reduce rolling resistance without sacrificing handling and grip.  Different tread patterns on tires and using different rubber compounds has made this technology possible and automobile manufacturers are taking advantage.

“Tires are the part of the car that make contact with the road” -Phish

Transmission is what converts engine revolution to tire revolution.  The efficiency of a car’s engine depends on the transmission.  Basically, the more gears a car has the more efficient that car can use the power that its engine is producing.

Aerodynamics is something that car manufacturers have adjusted drastically over the years.  the more vertical surface area that faces forward the harder the engine has to work to push the car through that air.  The auto industry has spent a lot of time developing cars with aerodynamic shapes so as to produce the least drag possible.  Cars like the Toyota Prius are designed in such a way because that model is marketed towards consumers who want to get good gas mileage.  Next, induction refers to the way that air gets into the engine.  when turbocharged engines first came out they were incredibly powerful and incredibly inefficient with gas.  These types of designs force air into the combustion chamber of the engine to generate more power.  In recent years these designs have become much more fuel efficient without sacrificing power using smaller displacement engines.

References:

http://www.stlyrics.com/songs/p/phish3050/contact143995.html

http://www.driverside.com/auto-library/top_10_factors_contributing_to_fuel_economy-317

http://2ndgreenrevolution.com/2009/03/09/can-the-iphone-increase-gas-mileage/

So this was the lego car we built following some detailed instructions and substituting a few parts here and there.  We were lucky enough to get a working battery.

The experiment itself was fairly straightforward.  Once the car was assembled we measured the diameter of the wheels and calculated the circumference (C=Dπ).  We then used the Labview program to set the motor power to 75 and to program the motor to run for 1 second.  One the car stopped we measured the distance it had traveled in that second.  On the first trial the distance was measured to be .25 meters by our group and .269 meters according to the computer.  We took these two numbers and calculated the percent of human error.  The average between the human measurement and the computer was .259 meters so the percent error was 7.33%.  For our next trial we set the motor speed to 50 and again measured the distance the car traveled in 1 second.  Because the motor power was lower in this trial the car did not travel as far.  The human measurement and the computer both measured the distance to be 16.5cm or .165 meters.  Therefore, the percent error on this trial was 0%. Sweet.  For the final trial we had the motor power set to 50 and allowed the motor to run for 2 seconds.  We measured the car to have traveled a distance of 33.1 cm and the computer measured a distance of 33.5 cm.  The average was .333 meters and the percent error was 1.2%.

There were a few purposes to this experiment.  One was to give the students a feel for the type of math that is used in these types of experiments.  For example the calculation of circumference and how this is important when considering RPMs.  The experiment certainly helped me to understand the relation between these concepts as I am not a math oriented person.  Also, this experiment clearly helped everyone to become more familiar with the Labview program.  How it works, the accuracy and type of data it produces, and the data that needs to be entered in order for it to work.    Furthermore, the experiment required students to acknowledge that considering the potential for human error is important in any experiment.