For our first lab experiment we were paired in groups, I ended up working in a group of three, to build a basic two-motor NXT car.  As someone who did not play with Lego’s too much as a child this seemed like a very daunting task.  But with the detailed instructions and two enthusiastic lab partners, this lab ended up turning up into a very enjoyable time.

To build our car we were given a kit and instructions to build a 2 motor car, with no light or touch sensors.  There were 17 required pieces, some pieces required different quantities though, so there was a lot to work with.  We were given a big box filled with a plethora of pieces and had to find all of the individual pieces required for the type of car we needed.  The first step was to put the battery into the NXT which was just a simple stick in procedure.  Using the double black connector pegs attached to the NXT we connected the motors on both sides.  Originally we attached the motors backwards so although it worked and was able to be mobile, once we realized and corrected our mistake it worked much better.  We then attached the support motors and the wheels.  Next were the front wheel assembly base and attachment.  When working with the little pieces, like the L beams, it was easy to get confused by the sizes but we were given a cheat sheet with a picture (with the correct measurements) so we could match up what was found in the box to the paper and then know exactly what the piece was. We then connected cables from ports A and C on the NXT to the motors and then connected the entire car to the computer with a USB cable.

On the computer we used the LabView program to operate the car.  This involved inputting different functions and commands to make the car perform different actions.  Once we completed the program, we saved LabView and sent the program directly to the NXT, so that the program could be executed without having the USB attached to it.  We were able to have our NXT drive in a circle with a 2 foot radius and then reverse the direction.  With LabView we were able to run the motor forwards, backwards, and even in a circle using different power levels.  It was very simple to change the program and the settings, with just a click of a button we were able to lower the power of one motor while increasing the other, the difficult part was hitting the orange button on the NXT once it started going!

We weren’t just playing with robot cars though, this experiment also showed us how to measure the distance the wheels traveled and the speed at which the car traveled. Then given a formula in class we were able to calculate our percent of error, all of our tests fell on or below the 20% limit that was given so overall our experiment was a success! These were our results:

Results of test 1: (1 sec run time)

Distance measured by ruler – 23/24 cm

Distance measured by program – 23 cm

Total rotations – 1.48

Velocity – .23 m/s

1% error

Results of test 2: (.5 seconds of run time)

Distance by ruler – 13cm

Distance by program – 11cm

Total rotations – .70

Velocity – .22 m/s

16% error

Results of Test 3: (.75 seconds)

Distance by ruler – 21 cm

Distance by program – 18cm

Rotations – 1.15

Velocity – .24 m/s

20% error

Results of Test 4: (1.25 seconds)

Distance by ruler – 33cm

Distance by program – 30cm

Rotations – 1.9

Velocity – .24 m/s

9% error

“U.S. automakers have until 2025 to raise the fuel economy on their cars and trucks to 54.5 miles per gallon…or face government fines.”  Jeff Green, writer for Business Week online, illustrates the difficult but necessary challenge facing the American auto industry.  With not only rising gas prices due to always increasing consumption but also air pollution, there is no doubt that new standards will benefit all of us.

It is thanks to President Obama’s new standards for the auto industry that brought about “the largest increase in mileage requirements since the government began regulating consumption of gasoline by cars in the 1970’s” (The New York Times). A few years past, when higher fuel economy standards were brought up, the executives of the industry went down to Washington to protest.  But as Mindy Lubber illustrated, “in 2008, while automakers plodded along with the same old gas-guzzling models as the price at the pump hit record highs, American consumers scrambled for more fuel efficient vehicles.”  As the auto industry saw how fuel efficiency was becoming more and more important in the mind of the consumer, they saw the benefits of fuel efficiency standards. Now the industry is standing beside the new standards and working together with the government in hopes of its success.

U.S. automakers are “already offering buyers a wider selection of more fuel efficient vehicles than ever before”, according to a 2012 article on Think Progress.  Auto companies have already discovered the popularity of smaller cars that are more fuel efficient and are now working more with gas electric hybrids and advancements in battery technology to provide buyers with the most fuel efficient vehicles.  According to the NY Times “these proposed standards can be met using well known technologies such as better engines, lower cost hybrids, and electric cars.”

Help with research and development for lower gas mileage is also coming from a surprising source; the Pentagon.  According to Business Week, “government researches at a new $60 million laboratory are road testing dozens of alternative fuel technologies for fighting vehicles, from converting body heat into electricity to perfecting fuel cells that transform hydrogen into power.”  The lab opened in April of 2012 in Warren, Michigan.  Once these experiments are perfected, they have no issue with sharing them with U.S. automakers in support of raising the fuel economy to 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025.  To do this they are researching and working with parts of automobiles that drain energy like mufflers or radiators.  They also hope to take the engine power that’s wasted as exhaust heat, recapture it and use it to recharge batteries or run internal computers.

Not only will these new standards and developments in gas mileage help cut consumer expenses at the pump, reduce oil consumption, and help reduce air pollution but according the Think Progress new fuel mileage standards will create almost 700,000 new jobs.  The way that this works out is as follows as shown on Think Progress :

• Ford is accelerating development of its hybrid and electric vehicles by bringing the design and production of key components in-house, a $135 million investment.
• Ford has already doubled the size of its team working on forward-looking energy technologies – over 1,000 engineers and technicians – and plans to double size of that team again by 2015.
• Honda plans to hire 300 more workers next year at its Greensburg, Ind., plant, which is slated to start producing the Civic Hybrid.
• Volkswagen is adding a third shift at its Tenn., plant, to boost production of its fuel-efficient Passat.
• Continental, a supplier of fuel-efficient turbo chargers to Ford’s 2014 Focus, is steadily pursuing electrification technologies and sees them as a “long-term investment.”

As US News illustrates, “so far, the new mileage rules have generated tangible benefits for consumers, with few of the downsides opponents have predicted.” It is due to advanced transmissions, lighter components, advanced power trains, gas electric hybrids, advances in battery technology, better engines, alternative fuel models, and electric cars  that, “since 2007, the average fuel economy of cars purchased has risen from 20.1 miles per gallon to 23.6 mpg” (US NEWS).  Based off of all of this research it seems clear that the new standards in increased gas mileage is a win-win for everyone that seems to be running smoothly so far.

Sources:

Green, Jeff. “Better Gas Mileage, Thanks to Pentagon.” Business Week. 17 May, 2012.

Lubber, Mindy. “Why Fuel Mileage Standards Will Benefit The Auto Industry and Create Nearly 700,000 New Jobs.” Think Progress. 27 August 2012.

Newman, Rick. “Tough Government Gas Mileage Rules Good for Drivers, Auto Industry.” US News. 27 August 2012.

Vlasic, Bill. “Carmakers Back Strict New Rules for Gas Mileage.” The New York Times. 28 July 2011.

Hurricane Sandy was one the greatest natural disasters we’ve had to deal with in our recent history.  Even now, years later, we are able to still see damage done.  When things so horrendous happen it is in our nature to ask why.  Many of us want to know what caused Hurricane Sandy and what we can do to make sure that something of that magnitude never occurs again. Global warming is another hot button issue that has been rising to greater and greater prominence in the past years. It is hard for anyone to deny the excessive damage global warming is doing to our world as more time goes by.  When considering these two issues together it is easy to come to the conclusion that global warming is the reason behind Hurricane Sandy.  But upon further research you will discover that this is not the case.  Global warming contributed to Hurricane Sandy but it is not the sole cause of it.

The reason that this is such an important issue is first off because global warming is still affecting us, even after we are rebuilding from Sandy we have to wonder what we are rebuilding for if global warming will still be contributing to such destructive events.  It is easy to see why people would put the full blame of Hurricane Sandy on global warming.  According to the LA times “more than half of Americans now believe that climate change caused by human activity is occurring, and 58% say they are “somewhat” or “very worried” about it.”  More and more people are realizing or becoming more worried about global warming especially when we are faced with such evidence to the destruction it can cause as Hurricane Sandy provided. But it is hard for us to not completely blame global warming when we realize that “Sandy was sitting on top of an ocean that…is a foot higher than it was a century ago because of sea level rise” (LA Times).  What can we blame that on if not global warming?

“Scientists are frequently asked about an event, ‘Is it caused by climate change?’ The answer is that no events are ‘caused by climate change’ or global warming but all events have a contribution” (Springer Link).  This quote beautifully illustrates the issue addressed in this blog and illustrates the stand that I am choosing to take.  Although global warming contributed to the destructiveness of Hurricane Sandy it is not the only cause behind it.  Springer Link is the first source we turn to illustrate the issue global warming is having on our weather and thus on our storms.  According to them “all weather events are affected by climate change because the environment in which they occur is warmer and moister than it used to be.”  Global warming has caused our climate to change and is thus creating an environment that certain weather issues can thrive in.  When our environment is becoming warmer and moister than it used to, this becomes the perfect breeding ground for a hurricane- the type of storm that thrives on warm and moist environment. “The air is on average warmer and moister than it was prior to about 1970 and in turn has likely led to a 5-10% effect on precipitation and storms that is greatly amplified in extremes” (Springer Link).

Hurricane Sandy occurred in late October of 2012.  During the midst of the storm Kevin Trenberth, a distinguished senior scientist at University Corporation for Atmospheric Research wrote online about the relationship between this storm and global warming.  Trenberth clearly illustrates the factors that create a storm of such destruction and although he links these factors being intensified by global warming he illuminates that global warming only contributed to it, and did not cause it.  For example, sea surface temperature contributed to Hurricane Sandy. As Trenberth puts it “with every degree C, the water holding the atmosphere goes up 7%, and the moisture provides fuel for the tropical storm, increases its intensity, and magnifies the rainfall by double that amount compared with normal condition.” Global warming is partially responsible for this because global warming has led to global climate change, which contributes to increased ocean and sea surface temperature.  But again Trenberth describes that global warming is not the sole cause behind Hurricane Sandy because “natural variability and weather has provided the…optimal conditions of a hurricane running into extra tropical conditions to make for a huge intense storm, enhanced by global warming influences.”

There is no doubt that an understanding of the effects of global warming on such extreme weather conditions is a necessity.  As Aslack Grinsted states “you can’t say global warming caused any single event, but when we start to see a trend like this…there’s a good chance these hurricanes wouldn’t be happening without warming…warming goes along with more frequent, large hurricanes.”  The danger behind understanding the relationship though is that it can lead to blame, we can wonder why didn’t our governments or scientists or someone do something sooner.  But when we start doing that we are again just prolonging coming to a solution.  It is clear that global warming contributed to the intensiveness of Hurricane Sandy but it is also clear that we no longer have time to blame someone.  We need to work towards fixing this issue now before we are confronted with another disaster of this magnitude.

Sources

Boxall, Bettina.  “Sandy a galvanizing moment for climate change?” Los Angeles Times. November 4, 2012.

Trenberth, Kevin. “Framing the way to relate climate extremes to climate change.” Springer Link. March 21, 2012.

Trenberth, Kevin. “Hurricane Sandy mixes super-storm conditions with climate change.” The Conversation. October 29, 2012.

Walsh, Teresa. “Was Hurricane Sandy Caused by Global Warming?” US News. October 30, 2012.

The energy crisis that is occurring all over our world is one of the greatest problems we are facing together.  From global warming to a guarantee that one day our fossil fuels will be running out, this is an issue that no country can afford to wait on.  Germany, as a highly devolved, populated, and powerful country, has realized in past years that changes need to be made now so they have enforced green energy policies. When researching Germany’s green energy problem, resolution, and so far development you encounter the overall issue with the energy crisis.  Germany has proven that this is an issue that needs to get addressed right now, due to how time sensitive it is, but it is also an issue where no clear-cut answer is given.  In the beginning stages, Germany’s new policies seemed very promising and great strides were made.  But just as with every new plan, there were downfalls that they could not predict would affect the success of the policies as much as they currently are.

Germany started their campaign and movement for green energy before many other European countries in the 2000’s when the Green Party entered the government. In 2009, according to an article posted in renewableenergyworld.com by Jane Burgermeister “Germany is accelerating its efforts to become the world’s first industrial power to use 100 percent renewable energy- and given that current momentum…could reach that green goal by 2050.”  That current momentum included research and development involving green energy as well as active strides to turn high government buildings such as the Reichstag in Berlin to be 100 percent renewable energy operated.  Germany’s plan relied heavily on energy efficiency as well as expansion.  They hoped to do the best they could but they also had the intention to do it as quickly as possible.  This might have contributed to their downfall because although the situation is time sensitive, doing something that could backfire might be worse than doing nothing.  But hope remained high in 2009 as citizens as well as the country’s renewable energy sector hoped the government as well as their plans would follow through.  As the director of Renewable Energy and Resources said “the technical capacity is available for the country to switch over to green energy, so it is a question of political will and the right regulatory framework.” One of the potential plans included the construction of a smart grid that would reduce the countries primary energy consumption by 28 percent from 13,842 peta-joules to 12,000 peta- joules in 13 years (Burgermeister). This plan, although somewhat affected by the recession occurring in the economic society at the time, hopes to bring down electricity demands as well as cost for energy imports.  To do this Germany will be taking advantage of wind energy due to their location on the North Sea, as well as bioenergy and hydropower.

But a few months later Spectrum.iee.org published an article written by Peter Fairley that criticized the very wind energy that Germany had hoped would account for 15 percent of their renewable energy.  Only 3 wind turbines had gone up, instead of the hundreds the “center left” political parties had discussed. This along with no change in greenhouse gas emission left the citizens and supporters of the green movement wondering where the momentum and plan had gone wrong. Although Germany was one of the most ‘go green’ type of countries the plan to change an entire country’s energy source is never easy and in late 2009 the plan seemed to be seriously slowed down.

The country seemed to be back on track in 2011 when a report released by Spiegel Online showed that the production of renewables in Germany was rapidly increasing.  The report stated: “According to…the German Association of Energy and Water Industries, renewables accounted for fully 20.8 percent of production during the first six months of 2011”.  This was a huge help to the plan that by 2022, Germany hoped to phase out all nuclear power.  Even Chancellor Merkel seemed to be doing her part as she closed 7 nuclear power plants in Germany, but due to other reasons as well.  Although wind power finally stepped up along with biomass and hydroelectric power it was the photovoltaic sector that was “up more than 76 percent since 2010”, as stated in the same article.  But this same year also saw the “first publicly traded solar-power company to file for bankruptcy in Germany” (thegwpf.org).  Cost of solar energy as well as electricity prices seemed to rising higher and higher along with tariffs to support all of this.  2011 was a perfect indicator that even when the plan seems to be working, things don’t always fall into place, and sometimes a country isn’t financially stable to support such drastic expensive changes so quickly.

To see how the green energy policy is doing today, we turn to The Prague Post that posted an article on January 16, 2013 titled “German Green- Energy push needs a rethink.”  Although the country continues with developments to go green such as a new 380 kilowatt east-west power circuit line that transmits wind energy, the cost and overall plan have been under critique.  From taxpayer’s have to pay for compensation when companies using green power need to shut down for fear of a black out to cities paying subsidies to local green energy producers, the expensive price cannot be ignored along with the fact that Germany still may not meet the same goals that it set for itself all those years ago.  Even if all of Germany is supportive of their plan, countries like the Czech Republic, which is on the same electricity grid, are being affected negatively.

The struggles that Germany is facing illuminates the overall energy crisis beautifully. It is a monstrous problem, which will not only be expensive, time consuming, and at times disappointing, but it must be something that we all do together.  One country cannot succeed alone.  Although Germany had fallbacks and even now is financially draining due to the high electricity rate price which, along with developmental issues, may prohibit the country from reaching their goals, we must admire that they are even trying.  Germany is choosing to move forward to fix this worldwide issue and it is time the rest of the world stepped in as well.

Sources

Burgermeister, Jane. “Germany: The Worlds First Major Renewable Energy Economy.” 3 April 2009. www.renewableenergyworld.com

Fairley, Peter. “Germany’s Green- Energy Gap.” July 2009. www.spectum.iee.org

“Germany’s Green Energy Fiasco.” 16 December 2011. www.thegwpf.org

Ottens Nick. “Region: German green energy push needs a rethink.” 16 January 2013. www.praguepost.com

Spiegel Online. “Crossing the 20 Percent Mark: Green Energy Use Jumps in Germany.” 30 August 2011. www.spiegel.de

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.