My group consisted of Pavel Zaytsev, Cassandra Hannon and then myself Richard Woodworth, or what I’m usually referred to as, Woody.  We went through many, many, different ideas for what we wanted to do for our final project and experiment.  For our experiment we wanted something hands on and exciting, but also relevant to the class and valuable to teach our classmates.  This was our criterion going forward for choosing what kind of experiment we wanted to demonstrate.  That was kind of the easy part.  We then researched together, as well as independently, a list of procedures and ideas we wanted to demonstrate.  After collaborating on this list we had several good options to choose from.  We thought of maybe making a tesla coil, as well as several other ideas using electricity and how it’s generated as the focus or even demonstrating how caloric energy taken into the body works.  These ideas proved mostly too complex for our required time or not relevant to what we thought was important for our classmates to take away.  We then decided to do something involving the ocean.  We thought that such an important part of our planet, our impact on it, and the results of such an impact, deserved to be discussed.  Once realizing these goals it was easy to decide that the Co2 we create and what effects it has on the ocean should be our focus.

We then had to design the experiment.  Pavel was the main designer of our experiment and his technical knowledge, skill and engineering experience was incredibly useful to the makeup of our team.  Cassie was always willing to help and I luckily have a saltwater fish tank so have general knowledge about what we would be working on.  We decided we wanted to show Co2 affecting the pH levels in the ocean because it is a global issue and something we wanted our classmates to understand.

The design of our experiment was simple.  We wanted to create a microcosm of the ocean and demonstrate how the Co2 entering the ocean affected pH.  In order to show this we first needed to create an environment that was representative of the ocean and reacted to Co2 being introduced in the same way as the ocean.  We did this by taking tap water and allowing its pH level to stabilize by sitting and equalizing with the surrounding environment.  This was necessary because pH is affected by a number of different elements and changing one, affects each and every other one.  It took us several attempts before we realized that letting the water equalize was very important.  We even tried using bottled water but, once again even the act of pouring the water changed the pH value and it still needed to stabilize. So by measuring and waiting for pH to settle we were able to make sure the results we saw from our experiment were true.  We then used baking soda added to the water to represent and demonstrate how the ocean has what is called a buffer system.  The baking soda changes and then again stabilizes the pH value.  This buffered water is our representation of the oceans environment.  We then use Coca Cola to represent and act as the Co2 that enters the ocean.  Upon entering the ocean Co2 has a chemical change and becomes carbonic acid.  Coca Cola contains carbonic acid, therefore was the simplest and most relatable way to demonstrate to people carbonic acid entering our representative ocean.

Our procedure after creating the necessary environments was to introduce regular and measured amounts of carbonic acid and measure the change in pH after each addition.  (Image shows pH Vs Co2)

In this way we could measure the effect of carbonic acid on pH and the ability and limitations of the baking soda acting as a buffer.  We then could extrapolate from our results the way pH is affected by Co2 and in turn carbonic acid, while also demonstrating how the buffer system in the ocean works.

  Our results were solid and sound.  We repeated the experiment several times and refined it in order to make it the most effective.  We did this by changing the amount of additives whether carbonic acid or baking soda, and varying the time we waited between measurements.  We found by adding small amounts of carbonic acid we could achieve a pattern that was repeated each time we did the experiment.  This pattern showed the effect on pH and the ability of a buffer.  We recognized within the pattern that the buffer initially is able to reduce the affect of the carbonic acid to a point, after which, the carbonic acid began to have a much greater impact while still adding the same measure of carbonic acid.  This is important because it shows that while we may see very little impact to the oceans pH initially, once it has absorbed its buffers capacity of carbonic acid it will begin to drop with much greater ease and severity.  To put this in relatable terms it would be as if the air around us suddenly had more and more helium in it for example.   We would be unable to speak normally and baritones would be quickly out of work.  While this type of effect is funny to us, the same principal applies to how the ocean is affected.  Organisms are not able to function properly in water with a lowered pH and basic life processes are impossible.  Most importantly we found is that calcification cannot occur in low pH.  This means that anything that requires this process to live would soon be extinct.  Unfortunately for us a vast majority of the base of the oceans food web requires this process.  Plankton, krill, coral, all of these would be wiped out very quickly.  Krill alone has an estimated biomass of up to and possibly over 500 million tons.   Humans in reference, have a biomass of around 350 million tons.   This would create a domino effect that would change the world oceans forever.  Massive extinctions would take place and we would lose many food sources we rely on from the ocean. We as humans have a habit of not recognizing change until it slaps us in the face and this ability for a dropping pH to sneak by was what we wanted to address because if were able to notice its effects, it’s already too late.  We wanted to show the underlying issues with how we effect our Earth and this experiment was a very effective teaching tool and I don’t believe that anyone who watched and listened to us speak about would be able to take away from the important lessons that were learned via our microcosm of the ocean.

The Presidents Climate Action Plan was interesting to read through and enlightening.  I was curious to find that it really does take a stance in saying that climate change is an occurring phenomenon and it wasn’t wish-washy on the subject.  It even goes so far as to blame greenhouse gases as the catalyst in the system, admitting to the fact that we are driving global warming essentially.   While I may not be an expert on White House policy, I didn’t know they would take such an attackable position on the matter and in fact I’m glad that they do.  I believe that they’re correct in their statements.

I would also like to talk about their expanding clean energy and cut energy waste section. It consists of mostly as follows:

• Financing and regulatory support for renewable and clean energy projects
• Actions to promote fuel switching from oil and coal to natural gas or renewables
• Support for the safe and secure use of nuclear power
• Cooperation on clean coal technologies
• Programs to improve and disseminate energy efficient technologies

Short in my opinion.  This is far too short of a summary of goals for such an important world topic and I was bummed to see that be the case.  While these are good goals they really are just a start and I would have hoped for more out of our government.

The International efforts to address global climate change section was also a little short in my opinion and relatively devoid of any plan of action.  The way it addressed how we wanted to interact with other nations was weak and I believe a more aggressive position needs to be taken than what they propose.  Then again it is something and a tiny step in the right direction is still a step in the right direction.

Overall I think that the “plan” is more of a general addressing of the issues not really a plan.  While this may be the intended nature of the report I would hope for something a little more in depth and hopefully more promising.

So upon being assigned a visit to the Museum of Science I decided to go with my friend Zhihua Ma.  He had not been to the museum before but as I had grown up in Massachusetts’s schools I had paid many a visit there and even done the fabled overnight at the museum.  I was very happy in retrospect to have chosen to go with a newbie though.  He looked upon all the exhibits with fresh awe and inspired me to look at things that I may have just written off as the same as when I had been there years ago.  The three exhibits that we had to see, Conserve at Home, Innovative engineers, and Energized!. These were all exhibits that were new to me and were all interesting and informative in their own right.  In the Innovative Engineers exhibit there was a video booth where we could choose which engineers video we wanted to watch.  My favorite by far was the story of the creator of Kevlar, Stephanie Kwolek.  It was interesting to hear the perspective of the person who had discovered such an incredible material and cool to see how passionate she was on the subject.  She could not have been more of an embodiment of her statement of “I think the role of science is to improve human life in general.”  She was clearly proud of her product and happy that she had helped the world.

The exhibit I think I truly learned the most at was, Conserve at Home.  It was amazing to see the ways that they represented energy use in the household and how much their simple tips did to save electricity.  One such example that truly struck me was the light bulb experiment.  There were several different styles of light bulbs in a row and by turning a handle and toggling between them, you could see how much energy they needed to be bright, or to light up at all.  Also there was an experiment with a tube of water with several outlets at them bottom that water flowed out of to represent how fast certain appliances consumed electricity.

 This made an immediate impact on me, a visual display at how quickly watts of electricity can be used up just by using different things made me realize how important making an appliance efficient is.   Another interesting part of this exhibit was the little pictures of what recyclable materials can be turned into.    Such as steel cans into bicycles, or plastic bottles being turned into furniture.  It was reaffirming to see the pictures and know that recycling really is a worthwhile process with real results beyond recycled cardboard.

            The third exhibit Energized!, was also very interesting but a lot was information I had previously heard/known.  The greatest thing I took away from Energized! Exhibit was from the below pictured map.

It shows the location of all the photovoltaic, advanced biomass power conversion, fuel cell, hydroelectric, landfill gas, and wind energy sites in Massachusetts up to 2011.  I never realized how many there were and it was interesting to see a map with them laid out.  The trip was fun and I actually ended up going back the next day to a few Omni movies that were also very interesting to see just like the rest of the museum had proved to be the day before.

MIT’s nuclear reactor was incredibly mundane when I walked up to it.  A normal brick building with what looked like a big blue silo that could be a water tower for all anybody cared.  What was contained inside was far more though.  The first hint I got upon entering was the general sense of sturdiness of everything.  Steel doorframes abounding and solid walls everywhere, this wasn’t the drywall you see in an office.  My suspicions were confirmed by the obvious security precautions taken by the staff, this was more than just a brick building.  Upon entering the reactor airlock I really felt as if I was stepping into something a little surreal.  Huge automatic doors with pneumatic seals that made your ears pop in the airlock was the final straw; I knew I would have some sort of super power or something when I left.  As the interior air lock door swung open and I stepped into the domed area I was a little confused.  I was sure we were going to be the only idiots not wearing hazmat suits, even if only because of the short duration of our stay, but there were none.  As the tour guide explained the amount of radiation we would experience would be less than a trip to the beach I felt a new phobia of going to the beach coming on.  That was, until I realized that it’s really all due to the incredibly secure nature in which these facilities operate.  There was no threat (which I was relieved of…sort of) of turning into Spiderman or any other comic book hero.  Also there were no mad scientists running around but instead a few scattered, but deeply focused individuals working on their various studies.  The area did seem relatively devoid of activity but I’m sure they don’t let strangers poke their noses around while ultra critical studies are going on.:Reactor Glow

I was really surprised at the amount the reactor seemed to be used for monetary gain.  They said they are heavily subsidized and even with the moneymaking ventures they take part in, they still run in the red every year.  This was somewhat bewildering to me, how has some wealthy MIT alumni not given vast sums of money to the program to fund more philanthropic acts of science for a research facility?  I’m sure more than one great mind has been honed studying in that very dome and at least a few of those must have made a great fortune in their lifetime.  It was somewhat disheartening that such a pinnacle of education could be disregarded in such a way.  Then again I’m not a financial expert on the running of nuclear power plants but still, the statement stuck out.  It was an incredible experience to see the plant though and as hard as it was not to play with any number of the thousands of buttons everywhere, it was a very fun and fulfilling experience.

The MIT nuclear reactor laboratory is an incredible piece of engineering and equipment located here in Boston.   It is designed primarily as a research facility and has been used in this way for 54 years.  It is generally in operation 24/7 except for planned maintenance.  This makes sense due to the obvious limited nature of these facilities and their importance in research.  The website goes on to explain what type of reactor it is running as follows, “The MITR-II, the major experimental facility of the NRL, is a heavy-water reflected, light-water cooled and moderated nuclear reactor that utilizes flat, plate-type, finned, aluminum-clad fuel elements. The average core power density is about 70 kW per liter. The maximum fast and thermal neutron flux available to experimenters are 1.2×10¹⁴ and 6×10¹³ neutrons/cm²-s, respectively.”  If you can understand half of that, then all the power to you because the greatest thing I have learned from the reactors website is that man this thing is complex.  There is also a trend for reiteration of how safe the facility is.  This is extremely comforting considering I live well within range of the Hollywood type explosions people fear from nuclear reactors.  I would expect that it must be a rock-solid, safe design to be located in such a densely packed metropolitan area. Then again it is comforting to hear them say so over and over again.

I was also amazed by the amount of research that they are, and have been involved with.  I took a particular interest in the boron neutron capture therapy.  This is a type of cancer treatment that helps eradicate brain tumors and is close to the heart for me because my aunt is currently suffering from brain cancer and has recently taken a turn for the worse.  It really draws to light the importance of places like these and makes the research that much more real and important to me personally.

The power that such discoveries can hold mitigates any risk that the reactor may impose, in my opinion.  This is just one of the research topics that they have been involved with and with the vast list of other ones, most of which I can hardly understand, one can only imagine the possibilities of such a place.

The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster was a doozey wasn’t it?  In my opinion not really, no.  It was actually a slight mishap in the larger scheme of things.  It was not a disaster because of the nature of the reactor but more so due to bad planning and preparation.  Even with sub par tactics there has still only been one death from the disaster(this is a highly debated statement but what I feel is the most valid).  It was an environmental disaster absolutely but then again 19,000 people died during those days from the tsunami and earthquake and none from the reactor itself.  It’s funny how we only remember the reactor mishap though, it just has enough shock value to stick in peoples minds and create enough fear to be memorable.

The greatest tragedy from the nuclear disaster really was the loss of land and homes for people in Japan.  In a country short of land and prone to tsunami’s, maybe a nuclear reactor isn’t the best idea.  I don’t think it takes away from the viability of reactors as alternative fuel sources for the rest of the world though.  They are far too efficient, clean and there are too many viable places and options for them to exist safely for the world to rule them out.

These Images show before and after the Tsunami

This is what japan has essentially done following the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster.  In doing so they have switched their focus to other alternative energy sources that may suite an island nation like Japan.  These were mainly fossil fuels and other renewable energy sources for a while but recently they have flip flopped that idea.  They have decided (three years later) to start to look into reopening some of the nuclear reactors.  This is a hard and discomforting idea to hear about in my opinion.  Even though the “disaster” wasn’t as bad as it could have been their ability to deal with the situation was far from brilliant.  Most of the casualties relating to the disaster were actually from trouble transporting the old and sick from hospitals!  If you are unable to unequivocally deal with those most in need from a sub-worst-case scenario than I don’t believe running multiple reactors (54) is the right decision.  Imagine a worse tsunami that managed to take out multiple reactors?  The implications are dumbfounding.  With their inability to enforce their own policies a real study should be made into finding a better, safer way to create power for their country.  It could be an economic boon to their country as well as the world economy if they were to reshape, and reengineer the way they create power.  While this is obviously not the easiest task to complete I believe that it is a better scenario than allowing the health of the Earth to be at great risk again.

http://www.nature.com/news/specials/japanquake/index.html

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/04/02/japan-nuclear-plant-owner-confirms-deaths-facility-workers-fail-contain/

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/other/fukushima-evacuation-has-killed-more-earthquake-tsunami-survey-says-f8C11120007

http://1×57.com/?tag=fukushima

Iceland is a Mecca for geothermal energy.  If one were to design a country with the production of geothermal energy in mind, they would inadvertently draw the same type of structure and layout that Iceland has today.  The image pictured below shows the hotspot that Iceland sits on top of.  Red triangles being volcanoes, and the purplish color area being the extremely active rift zone, rife with magma.

This access to geothermal energy has allowed Iceland to become a world leader in geothermal energy production.  It is now used to produce around a quarter of the countries electricity!  This is a breakdown of all the uses of that geothermal gold mine.

As you can see while electricity production is one utilization of geothermal energy that is from the end of its uses.  Today 90% of homes in Iceland are heated by tapping directly into this geothermal source.  With all of its direct uses geothermal energy accounts for more than half of Iceland’s entire energy needs!  While this may be hard to wrap your head around, these numbers probably won’t help.  Between 1970-2000 Iceland saved ~8.2 billion US dollars by using geothermal energy.  They also decreased Co2 emissions by 37%.  If the rest of the world were to follow that lead, our planet would be exponentially better off than it is today.  Greenhouse gases would be a discussion for far future generations to have, and as a bonus all our bills would be cheaper!

While Iceland’s geological positioning is rare it is not unique among the world.  In the US there is another hotspot in Montana that could be utilized for energy production albeit it is not as close to homes so home heating would be more difficult but why not electricity production?  There are also other hotspots around the world including around Asia, Hawaii and up along the eastern seaboard of Africa and into the Mediterranean.  If all of these spots were exploited just a little bit more the effects would be profound and a global impact would undoubtedly be noticed.  So then, the question remains. Why aren’t world powers using these readily available resources better?  I don’t have the answer and many have tried to find out why more countries aren’t following Iceland’s lead, my suggestion…write you’re local government official, that should work, right?

Tobias Weisenberger (2013). “Introduction to the geology of Iceland”

Sveinbjorn Bjornsson, Geothermal Development and Research in Iceland (Ed. Helga Bardadottir. Reykjavik: Gudjon O, 2006)

http://www.nordicenergy.org/thenordicway/

While most of us have heard of the internal combustion engine, in fact most of us use one daily, few have heard of the Stirling heat engine and even less use one on a daily basis.  Unless you happen to live on your massive family yacht or are currently 20,000 leagues under the sea in your submarine, you probably fall into the category of those who have never had to utilize a Stirling engine.  These are just two examples of the current uses for a Stirling engine, quiet applications that a combustion engine would be ill suited for.  So what is a Stirling engine?

A Stirling engine uses the thermodynamic expansion and contraction properties of fluids or gases to drive a piston back and forth by cooling and heating in succession.  This gif shows the action I am talking about.

By using an external heat source as its driving force the Stirling engine allows for unique possibilities that other standard engines just cannot compete with.   It is far more efficient than a combustion engine but alas is nowhere near as practical.  Practicality is the major flaw in this design.  These engines are finicky to say the least, they need a heating and cooling system and time to initiate the cycle.  For most practical uses these attributes rule out the Stirling engine as a possibility.  This major issue is how the combustion engine was able to surpass the Stirling engine in popularity and fall by the wayside.

It does beg the question though as to how these engines can be applied to alternative energy uses.  Geothermal energy has great potential applicability as well as solar which some organizations have already begun to exploit.  Imagine sticking one of these in a hotspring in Montana in the winter? There’s your heat source and cooling agent.   There has been a revival in popularity recently with the rediscovery of the Stirling engine and we can only hope that someone will find a way to apply it to our energy crisis because we do so dearly need some new creative alternatives.

A peltier device uses differentiation in temperature in a different way, it creates it.  Discovered in 1834 by French physicist Jean Charles Athanase Peltier, the peltier effect is when two different conductors have an electric current put through and heat is either produced at the junction or taken away.  The principle is applied today as heat pumps to control heat or cool.  They are known in this application as a Peltier device, Peltier heat pump, solid state refrigerator, or thermoelectric cooler (TEC).  They are typically used in cooling and like a Stirling engine, can be found where quiet operation is necessary such as a submarine or even the computer you’re reading this on!  This is an example of what that may look like:

http://www.stirlingengine.com/two-piston-animation-detail/

http://www.physics.rutgers.edu/ugrad/351/oldslides/Lecture11.pdf

http://www.animatedengines.com/vstirling.html

http://www.heatsink-guide.com/peltier.htm

http://www.tellurex.com/technology/peltier-faq.php

Welcome to Blogs.cas.suffolk.edu. This is your first post. Edit or delete it under Manage>Posts or make a new one under Write>Posts then start blogging! Be sure to visit the Design tab to choose a new look for your blog as well.

Also, for immediate “how-to’s” visit the Tutorials section, or the Getting Started section.