This week's exercise used the types of communication skills we discussed in class: speaking informally, listening, making formal presentations, and using the writing process.
Speaking Informally
The art of informal speaking is somewhat lost, especially "like" since our "like" generation seems to "like" use the word like "like" after every "like" three words, thereby "like" distorting the message. I would say that for us we have to be careful the inappropriate use of like, but also with tone of voice, pace, and eye contact. Most of the presenters did not have a problem and spoke clearly. Yet, tone of voice and projection is one of the hardest habits to change but when mastered, makes all the difference in the world. I noticed that speaking confidently like you want to be heard is what distinguished orators from everyone else. I think that as a group everyone can improve on this.
Listening
The art of listening has also seen a decline, especially since electronic devices often trump whatever other activity we're involved in. Despite this, this week everyone seemed to be paying attention to the speaker (I'd say partly because the presentations were short). So A+ for our class on our listening skills.
Making a Formal Presentation
This week's assignment was a "mini"formal presentation in which our methods were formal but the topic was "light." Overall the power point slides were decent but better yet they served as guiding points for the speaker. The fact that everyone presented the same article made the presentations a bit repetitive but it was interesting to note how everyone interpreted and presented the article in a unique way.
Using the Writing Process
Although we barely used the writing process because of the assignments simplicity, we did write on the slides. I'd say that this category was the least used but I do have a comment. For me the less you write and more you talk, the better. Some presenters had this down and I believe this is definitely they way to go and make the presentation more interesting.
In general, I think the presentations were good. Some people were better at captivating the audience than others but that's to be expected (depending on humor and charisma). We need to improve a bit on speaking, and this in turn will improve listening.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
MEGAblog Assignment
ONE
ABSTRACT:
“Pass On The Beef!” was an investigation particularly concerned with the ugly side of the meat industry. The main purpose of this research was to get the fundamental facts and statistics on the devastating environmental consequences. As a “veggie” eater myself, my particular angle was to explore the dark crevices of this topic concerning carbon dioxide and methane emissions, deforestation, and water and land degradation.
EXCERPT:
Environment: In 2006, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization released a report titled Livestock’s Long Shadow. Although this report was released two years ago, there have been no major changes in the livestock sector as to indicate significantly altered figures and statistics. The report revealed that the livestock sector generates 18% more greenhouse gas emissions as measured in CO2 than transport. “When emissions from land use and land use change are included, the livestock sector accounts for 9 percent of CO2 deriving from human-related activities, but produces a much larger share of even more harmful greenhouse gases.” Yet, manure accounts for 65% of human-related nitrous oxide emissions, which has 296 times the Global Warming Potential (GWP) of CO2. Also, 37% of all human-induced methane (23 times as warming as CO2 and produced by digestive systems) and 64% of ammonia, a contributor to acid rain are byproducts of the livestock sector.
The report also exposes that livestock now use 30 percent of the earth’s entire land surface, including 33 percent of the global arable land used to produce feed for livestock. Especially in South America, deforestation is an incentive to create new pastures and some 70 percent of former forests in the Amazon have been turned over to grazing.
Furthermore, the livestock sector is a major source of land and water degradation. About 20 percent of pastures considered as degraded through overgrazing, compaction and erosion. The livestock business is among the most damaging sectors to the earth’s increasingly scarce water resources, contributing among other things to water pollution, euthropication (accelerated growth and overcrowding of plants in a body of water thereby depleting oxygen), and the degeneration of coral reefs. Widespread overgrazing disturbs water cycles, reducing replenishment of above and below ground water resources. The major polluting agents include: animal wastes, antibiotics, hormones, chemicals from tanneries, fertilizers, and the pesticides used to spray feed crops. Significant amounts of water are withdrawn for the production of feed.
TWO
ABSTRACT:
This blog posted on November 9, 2008, is a detailed summery of a Scientific American article concerning the electronics industries and the gas nitrogen triflouride. The article exposes that the extremely potent greenhouse gas, used by the semiconductor and LCD manufacturers, is not only a new threat, terrifyingly enough companies are not required to monitor their emissions.
EXCERPT:
Ugh Oh...There's a New Contaminator on the Block!
Nitrogen triflouride (NF3) is a greenhouse gas that has 17,000 times the planet-warming capacity of carbon dioxide. Currently, this gas is used as a cleaning agent in both the semiconductor industry to clean the chambers in which silicon chips are made and in the manufacture of the thin-film solar cell used in flat panel LCD screens. Presently, it adds about 0.04 % of the global warming effect created by carbon dioxide, but the danger stands in the fact that as flat panel LCD televisions become standard, more gas will be utilized in their manufacture. “This gas is not regulated and electronics companies are not required to keep a record of how much the use or emit.”
In the past, the semiconductor industry NF3 (one of the first industries to use NF3 in the 1980s) estimated that during the cleaning process, only 2% of this gas escaped into the air. The first-ever measurements of nitrogen triflouride levels in the atmosphere were published recently in the journal Geographical Research Letters. The results: emissions are as high as 16%. Studies estimate the production of the gas is nearly doubling every year.
Some large companies like Toshiba, Samsung, and LG are trying to solve the problem by adopting alternatives to NF3 . They have installed systems that generate fluorine (by splitting hydrogen fluoride) at some of their LCD and semiconductor facilities. This process, with no direct global warming risks, requires less energy than breaking nitrogen triflouride. The downsides of this system are that it requires significant upfront costs that prevent smaller LCD manufacturers from adopting this method. Also, fluorine is a toxic and corrosive gas and accidental releases lead to a variety of harmful consequences.
NF3 needs to be closely monitored and its vital that electronics companies begin to report it manufacture and emissions. Carbon dioxide is not the only gas we need to worry about. The increasing demand for the development new technology comes with new environmental consequences WE need to be aware of.
THREE
ABSTRACT:
This blog, titled “Recycling Research” (Sept. 28), aimed to get a basic understanding of the incentives and environmental benefits of recycling. The purpose of this investigation was to learn about some positive consequences of recycling consumer products. I used the to Internet to find facts and statistics that demonstrate the three major advantages of recycling: reduces amount of natural resources needed for manufacture, reduces amount of garbage that ends up in landfill, and reduces (or conserves) energy needed for manufacturing processes. Fundamentally, this investigation taught me just how good recycling can be.
EXCERPT:
The technically recycling is when consumer goods are collected, converted back into raw materials, and remade into new consumer products. There are 4 major incentives to recycle:
1. Reduce the amount of garbage that ends up in landfills. (The more garbage, greater is the effect of underground pollution.)
2. Recycling will reduce the amount of natural resources needed to manufacture goods. In other words, less fossil fuels for plastic and less paper for trees.
3. Many times recycling uses less energy. This definitely true for steel but not so much for plastic (which is relatively inexpensive to manufacture)
4. "For cities in densely populated areas that have to pay by the ton for their landfill usage, recycling can shave millions of dollars off municipal budgets...Economic analysis shows that recycling can generate three times as much revenue per ton as landfill disposal and almost six times as many jobs."
The most common type of recycling is known as down-recycling which means that a recycled product is of less quality (or cheaper or weaker) than original product. Eventually, products become unfeasible candidates for "re"-recycling and are regarded as garbage.
Interesting facts about recycling:
* The EPA estimates that 75 percent of what Americans throw in the trash could actually be recycled
* Incinerating 10,000 tons of waste creates one job; landfilling 10,000 tons of waste creates six jobs; recycling 10,000 tons of waste creates 36 jobs
* The national recycling rate of 30 percent saves the equivalent of more than five billion gallons of gasoline, reducing dependence on foreign oil by 114 million barrels
* According to the EPA, recycling (including composting) diverted 68 million tons of material away from landfills and incinerators in 2001, up from 34 million tons in 1990
* Recycling aluminum cans at the curb not only covers the cost of collecting and re-processing aluminum, but helps subsidize the collection of other recyclables.
FOUR
ABSTRACT:
This blog posted on November 8, 2008, aimed at detailing the basic workings of the internal combustion engine. Understanding the internal combustion is important because it explains how most cars, airplanes, boats, even lawnmowers (emitters of carbon dioxide) operate.
EXCERPT:
Heat is a form of energy and there stands the intimate relationship between thermodynamics and the environment…
Heat is both a form of energy and a form of motion (at the atomic level). The internal combustion engine (ICE), like the one found in cars, makes use of both of the forms of heat. The main characteristic of an internal combustion engine is that it burns fuel inside the engine itself in order to convert it into useful work. An ICE’s efficiency depends on the percentage of the fuel (input) that can be converted into useful work.
First, the battery (ex. car battery) powers the starter motor… A typical ICE functions on a 4-step cycle:
1. “The piston moves down the cylinder creating a partial vacuum and the inlet valve opens to introduce air and some fuel, such as petrol.” A car, for example, first converts the chemical energy of the fuel into thermal energy to then use it in mechanical work.
2. “The inlet valves close while the piston moves forward compressing the fuel-air mixture. Once maximally compressed, the mixture is ignited by the spark plug.”
3. “The burning mixture reaches high-pressure and expands to push the piston back and perform work on the car.”
4. The burnt remains (exhaust) are squeezed out as the outlet valve opens and the piston pushes inward again.
The original source of energy in this system (car engine) is the chemical potential energy within the hydrocarbon bonds in the gasoline. Fuel is burnt so make the energy within these bonds more accessible to form stronger bonds with the oxygen in the air. by burning the gasoline as hot as possible and releasing the exhaust at the closest possible ambient temperature (ensures the greatest amount of heat is used) maximum efficiency is attained. One way to allow exhaust to cool is by providing the exhaust gases to expand as much as possible before being removed.
The environmental “issue” with the use of fossil fuels, especially in ICEs, is that fossils fuels are carbon-rich nonrenewable energy deposits. Fossil fuels are extremely polluting because their combustion releases sulfur, nitrogen oxides, and carbon dioxide. Fossil fuel emissions make up more than half of the global total of CO2 emissions.
To tie it back to thermodynamics, creating efficient ICEs will not only reduce the amount of needed “dirty” fossil fuels. And by reducing the quantity of fossils fuels needed, less are burned, and less CO2 lingers in the atmosphere.
FIVE
ABSTRACT:
“The Truth About My Carbon Footprint” (Oct. 9) revealed the ugly side of my carbon footprint in Puerto Rico. In order to get a broad estimate of my emissions, I used two carbon footprint calculators. And although these tools gave me two widely different readings, they were both on the higher end of the scale. According to www.nature.org and www.climatecrisis.net, I was emitting 18.1 and 29 tones per year, respectively. In a nutshell, my emissions were sky-high because I travel long distances a few times a year. Now, these readings do have sources of error because both of these sites did not list Puerto Rico as a state or country. Therefore, I said I lived in Hawaii because it is also a tropical island (no heating required) and the majority of houses are equipped with air conditioning.
EXCERPT:
To measure my (ex)carbon footprint I used the websites: www.climatecrisis.net & www.nature.org. To my astonishment, both calculators estimated my footprint to be more than double of that of the average American (18.1 and 29 respectively). I, the vegetarian who renounced meat because its industry is detrimental to the environment, almost fell out of my chair. Embarrassed, I went to evaluate the factors that contributed to these calculations. First of all, neither of the sites listed Puerto Rico as place of residence. This is an extremely important factor because electrical energy is relatively expensive when compared to other states. So when I inserted my yearly energy bill (which is quite high because my parents are not environmentally conscientious) I knew its reading was slightly erroneous.
General facts that my readings depended on:
-I recycle everything recyclable
-I drive a small car
-No need for heating oil
-I travel twice a year to Europe and a few times a year to contiguous USA.
-I live in a house (w/ a pool)
-We are a family of 4
-I don't eat meat
My readings were high for two main reasons:
1. My electric bill does not provide an accurate account of the amount of energy consumed because PR was not listed as a state or country. (Clearly this is a factor I cannot control)
2. I travel...a lot. (Factor within my power, but hard to overcome.)
Although there is a difference of 19 tons per year in my readings and currently I lack an accurate estimation of my carbon emissions, I can easily guess that my emissions levels are high.
SIX
ABSTRACT:
The objective of “Clean Coal is SCANDOLOUS!” (Nov. 9) was to investigate the subject of “clean” coal or the carbon-capture and storage technologies. This post first aimed to understand the nature of flue gas in order to then explain how these technologies “clean” the coal. This topic, currently under intense spotlight since the cancelation of FutureGen, is an important interim energy option. Ideally, it would be better to find a way to replace fossil fuels but since that is not yet a feasible option, taking advantage of the clean coal technologies is almost the next best thing.
EXCERPT:
We all know coal is the dirtiest of all fossil fuels. When coal burns (as to make steam that turn turbines in order to generate electricity) it releases carbon dioxide and other emissions in flue gas. The "clean" technology in clean coal means that the degree of flue gas contamination is decreased. There are various technologies available like Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) systems, which avoid burning coal altogether. IGCC systems burn carbon and hydrogen in a gas turbine to make electricity and heat energy, which powers a steam turbine. Yet, the most “clean” and therefore promising technology is carbon-capture and storage, which catches and isolates carbon dioxide emissions from power plants.
Three carbon capture technologies include: flue-gas separation which removes CO2 with steam; oxy-fuel combustion burns the fuel in pure or enriched oxygen to create a flue gas composed primarily of CO2 and water; and pre-combustion capture is a gasification process that removes CO2 before it's burned.
After capture, secure containers sequester the CO2 to avoid or stall its reentry into the atmosphere. The containers face two storage options: geologic which injects CO2 deep inside the Earth’s crust in exhausted gas and oil fields and oceanic (new technology that could slightly decrease pH and harm marine habitats) which injects liquid CO2 into waters 500 to 3,000 meters deep, where it dissolves under pressure.
Realistically speaking, as long as coal is cheap and readily available, it will be really difficult to wane ourselves off of coal. That is why is it so important to take advantage of these “clean” technologies as long as we’re still using this dirty fossil fuel. Although some power plants have invested in adopting these technologies, these practices yet to be widely used. The construction of the FutureGen Power Plant, which not only proposed to generate electricity using carbon-capture and storage technology and also produce hydrogen, was canceled earlier this year. The clean coal adoption process is looking a bit grim…as environmental activists advocate that the use of coal is never 'clean' and the lender banks and the government deem it too expensive to get it rolling.
SEVEN
ABSTRACT:
This post (Nov. 10) was about President-elect Obama’s environmental plans for the United States. It’s safe to say that Obama is aware that climate change is a global crisis and has intentions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and invest in alternative energy sources. Although his New Energy for American Plan is less rigorous than what environmentalists would like, it is safe to say that it has definite goals that will hopefully set the United States “green” path.
EXCERPT:
The Obama and Biden Website summarizes the Obama‐Biden comprehensive New Energy for America plan will:
• Provide short‐term relief to American families facing pain at the pump
• Help create five million new jobs by strategically investing $150 billion over the next ten years
to catalyze private efforts to build a clean energy future.
• Within 10 years save more oil than we currently import from the Middle East and Venezuela combined
•Put 1 million Plug‐In Hybrid cars – cars that can get up to 150 miles per gallon – on the road by 2015, cars that we will work to make sure are built here in America
• Ensure 10 percent of our electricity comes from renewable sources by 2012, and 25 percent by 2025
Obama Supports:
1. Hastening the expansion of carbon-capture-and –storage and “clean coal” technology.
2. The carbon dioxide cap-and-trade sytem, similar the schemes in effect the European Union and the U.S. Northeast. Obama’s plans to cut the U.S.’s emissions of greenhouse so that by gases to 1990 levels by 2020 and 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. His proposal states that some of the money auctioned by the cap-and-trade permits will “fund renewable energy alternatives and other infrastructure upgrades.
3. Expanding the use of renewable energy. By the end of his first term, Obama intends to have increased the use of non-renewable energy for electricity from the current 8% to 10%.
4. Investing in ‘green collar’ jobs to “replace industrial ‘blue collar’ jobs lost in recent decades as steel mills and factories closed.”
5. Obama supports offshore oil exploration in areas where it is already permitted.
6. Corn-based ethanol, something he has called a good “transition technology” away from fossil fuels.
7. Raising the federal fuel efficiency requirements (with the hope that U.S. automakers will consider plug-in hybrids and other alternative fuel vehicles.
Obama Opposes:
1. Offshore drilling in pristine areas such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Obama is Silent On:
1. Global deforestation crisis
2. Issues of animal extinction
3. Hazardous waste trafficking
EIGHT
ABSTRACT:
“Pass On The Beef!” (Nov. 2) was an investigation into the ugly side of the meat industry. My main purpose was to obtain facts and statistics that would not only help support but also explain my decision to become a vegetarian. This excerpt concerns the topics of animal cruelty and the inadequate use resources.
EXCERPT:
I keep getting questions as to why I’m a vegetarian. People who are aware of animal cruelty in factory farms, wide use of antibiotics, deforestation for the meat industry, and large contribution to methane emissions nod understandingly. But lately I’ve had a really hard time explaining to people who can’t comprehend my logic because I’m a bit rusty on my facts and statistics. In other words, I know why I don’t eat meat but I’m having a hard time effectively communicating this to an ignorant audience. This is why I have decided to hit two birds with one stone and investigate DEEPER into the meat industry for my personal knowledge and so that in the future I will be better equipped to inform others.
Animal Cruelty: I’m not going to elaborate on this topic because we’ve all seen the pictures. I just want to say two things. First, in essence, I don’t believe that eating meat is a “sin.” For centuries it has ensured human survival. But we’ve gotten to the point where the methods of factory farming and the large-scale environmental effects are too loud to be ignored. I disagree with factory farms, deforestation, and use of antibiotics, animal cruelty that involves meat eating.
Resources: Factory farming wastes resources. The US spends more than 70% of the grains and cereals it grows and about 50% of its water resources to raise animals for food. Approximately, 80% of the agricultural land in the United States is used for animal farming.
In a world where 923 million are hungry this is incomprehensible.
NINE
ABSTRACT:
This post (Dec. 3) is a demonstration of what I learned through my research of nuclear energy. This excerpt is a basic explanations about fundamental characteristics of nuclear generators and how electricity is generated within the nuclear plant.
EXCERPT:
Nuclear energy specifically utilized for generating electrical power has two substantial advantages: it is sustainable and clean. Nuclear technology is sustainable because its fuel is abundant enough to last for centuries and it is clean because its generation and consumption essentially does not emit greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. It has been technologically proven that nuclear power has the capacity to provide clean and sustainable energy on a global scale because not only are these technologies readily available, they are potent enough to meet global energy demands.
Today approximately 440 nuclear reactors provide about 16% of the world’s electrical energy and 20% of the United States’ electricity.
PRODUCTION OF ELECTRICAL ENERGY
The nuclear reactor is the heart of a nuclear power plant. Its basic function is to preserve a fission chain reaction in order to extract its valuable energy. More specifically, nuclear reactors are responsible for fissioning uranium, which yields the thermal energy that produces the high-pressure steam that drives a turbine connected to an electric generator. This steam is condensed using a nearby body of water, and this cycle continues. Cooling towers release waste heat into atmosphere to avoid thermal pollution of the water sources.
All the nuclear plant reactors in the United States are light-water reactors (LWRs), which means it utilizes H20 as both the moderator and coolant. In order to maintain the multiplication factor at one neutron, a moderator slows down the neutrons. Water is an exemplary moderator because the single protons in the hydrogen collide with the neutrons thereby reducing their speed. Water is also an effective coolant because it successfully captures the energy of the random thermal motion and transports it to the turbines where it works to produce electricity. The control rods are neutron-absorbing substances found between the uranium fuel rods. They are responsible for maintaining the multiplication rate at one by either increasing or decreasing the reaction rate.
The pressure vessel contains the nuclear fuel and the water circulates among the fuel rods in order to slow the neutrons for more effective fission and remove the thermal energy generated by the fission. About one-third of power reactors are boiling-water reactors (BWRs) and the rest are pressurized water reactors (PWRs). BWRs allow the water in the reactor vessel to boil, while PWRs maintain the mildly radioactive water at a high pressure so it does not boil. A steam generator moves the heated water from the reactor to a secondary pipe system containing boiling water, which in turn drive the turbines.
ABSTRACT:
“Pass On The Beef!” was an investigation particularly concerned with the ugly side of the meat industry. The main purpose of this research was to get the fundamental facts and statistics on the devastating environmental consequences. As a “veggie” eater myself, my particular angle was to explore the dark crevices of this topic concerning carbon dioxide and methane emissions, deforestation, and water and land degradation.
EXCERPT:
Environment: In 2006, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization released a report titled Livestock’s Long Shadow. Although this report was released two years ago, there have been no major changes in the livestock sector as to indicate significantly altered figures and statistics. The report revealed that the livestock sector generates 18% more greenhouse gas emissions as measured in CO2 than transport. “When emissions from land use and land use change are included, the livestock sector accounts for 9 percent of CO2 deriving from human-related activities, but produces a much larger share of even more harmful greenhouse gases.” Yet, manure accounts for 65% of human-related nitrous oxide emissions, which has 296 times the Global Warming Potential (GWP) of CO2. Also, 37% of all human-induced methane (23 times as warming as CO2 and produced by digestive systems) and 64% of ammonia, a contributor to acid rain are byproducts of the livestock sector.
The report also exposes that livestock now use 30 percent of the earth’s entire land surface, including 33 percent of the global arable land used to produce feed for livestock. Especially in South America, deforestation is an incentive to create new pastures and some 70 percent of former forests in the Amazon have been turned over to grazing.
Furthermore, the livestock sector is a major source of land and water degradation. About 20 percent of pastures considered as degraded through overgrazing, compaction and erosion. The livestock business is among the most damaging sectors to the earth’s increasingly scarce water resources, contributing among other things to water pollution, euthropication (accelerated growth and overcrowding of plants in a body of water thereby depleting oxygen), and the degeneration of coral reefs. Widespread overgrazing disturbs water cycles, reducing replenishment of above and below ground water resources. The major polluting agents include: animal wastes, antibiotics, hormones, chemicals from tanneries, fertilizers, and the pesticides used to spray feed crops. Significant amounts of water are withdrawn for the production of feed.
TWO
ABSTRACT:
This blog posted on November 9, 2008, is a detailed summery of a Scientific American article concerning the electronics industries and the gas nitrogen triflouride. The article exposes that the extremely potent greenhouse gas, used by the semiconductor and LCD manufacturers, is not only a new threat, terrifyingly enough companies are not required to monitor their emissions.
EXCERPT:
Ugh Oh...There's a New Contaminator on the Block!
Nitrogen triflouride (NF3) is a greenhouse gas that has 17,000 times the planet-warming capacity of carbon dioxide. Currently, this gas is used as a cleaning agent in both the semiconductor industry to clean the chambers in which silicon chips are made and in the manufacture of the thin-film solar cell used in flat panel LCD screens. Presently, it adds about 0.04 % of the global warming effect created by carbon dioxide, but the danger stands in the fact that as flat panel LCD televisions become standard, more gas will be utilized in their manufacture. “This gas is not regulated and electronics companies are not required to keep a record of how much the use or emit.”
In the past, the semiconductor industry NF3 (one of the first industries to use NF3 in the 1980s) estimated that during the cleaning process, only 2% of this gas escaped into the air. The first-ever measurements of nitrogen triflouride levels in the atmosphere were published recently in the journal Geographical Research Letters. The results: emissions are as high as 16%. Studies estimate the production of the gas is nearly doubling every year.
Some large companies like Toshiba, Samsung, and LG are trying to solve the problem by adopting alternatives to NF3 . They have installed systems that generate fluorine (by splitting hydrogen fluoride) at some of their LCD and semiconductor facilities. This process, with no direct global warming risks, requires less energy than breaking nitrogen triflouride. The downsides of this system are that it requires significant upfront costs that prevent smaller LCD manufacturers from adopting this method. Also, fluorine is a toxic and corrosive gas and accidental releases lead to a variety of harmful consequences.
NF3 needs to be closely monitored and its vital that electronics companies begin to report it manufacture and emissions. Carbon dioxide is not the only gas we need to worry about. The increasing demand for the development new technology comes with new environmental consequences WE need to be aware of.
THREE
ABSTRACT:
This blog, titled “Recycling Research” (Sept. 28), aimed to get a basic understanding of the incentives and environmental benefits of recycling. The purpose of this investigation was to learn about some positive consequences of recycling consumer products. I used the to Internet to find facts and statistics that demonstrate the three major advantages of recycling: reduces amount of natural resources needed for manufacture, reduces amount of garbage that ends up in landfill, and reduces (or conserves) energy needed for manufacturing processes. Fundamentally, this investigation taught me just how good recycling can be.
EXCERPT:
The technically recycling is when consumer goods are collected, converted back into raw materials, and remade into new consumer products. There are 4 major incentives to recycle:
1. Reduce the amount of garbage that ends up in landfills. (The more garbage, greater is the effect of underground pollution.)
2. Recycling will reduce the amount of natural resources needed to manufacture goods. In other words, less fossil fuels for plastic and less paper for trees.
3. Many times recycling uses less energy. This definitely true for steel but not so much for plastic (which is relatively inexpensive to manufacture)
4. "For cities in densely populated areas that have to pay by the ton for their landfill usage, recycling can shave millions of dollars off municipal budgets...Economic analysis shows that recycling can generate three times as much revenue per ton as landfill disposal and almost six times as many jobs."
The most common type of recycling is known as down-recycling which means that a recycled product is of less quality (or cheaper or weaker) than original product. Eventually, products become unfeasible candidates for "re"-recycling and are regarded as garbage.
Interesting facts about recycling:
* The EPA estimates that 75 percent of what Americans throw in the trash could actually be recycled
* Incinerating 10,000 tons of waste creates one job; landfilling 10,000 tons of waste creates six jobs; recycling 10,000 tons of waste creates 36 jobs
* The national recycling rate of 30 percent saves the equivalent of more than five billion gallons of gasoline, reducing dependence on foreign oil by 114 million barrels
* According to the EPA, recycling (including composting) diverted 68 million tons of material away from landfills and incinerators in 2001, up from 34 million tons in 1990
* Recycling aluminum cans at the curb not only covers the cost of collecting and re-processing aluminum, but helps subsidize the collection of other recyclables.
FOUR
ABSTRACT:
This blog posted on November 8, 2008, aimed at detailing the basic workings of the internal combustion engine. Understanding the internal combustion is important because it explains how most cars, airplanes, boats, even lawnmowers (emitters of carbon dioxide) operate.
EXCERPT:
Heat is a form of energy and there stands the intimate relationship between thermodynamics and the environment…
Heat is both a form of energy and a form of motion (at the atomic level). The internal combustion engine (ICE), like the one found in cars, makes use of both of the forms of heat. The main characteristic of an internal combustion engine is that it burns fuel inside the engine itself in order to convert it into useful work. An ICE’s efficiency depends on the percentage of the fuel (input) that can be converted into useful work.
First, the battery (ex. car battery) powers the starter motor… A typical ICE functions on a 4-step cycle:
1. “The piston moves down the cylinder creating a partial vacuum and the inlet valve opens to introduce air and some fuel, such as petrol.” A car, for example, first converts the chemical energy of the fuel into thermal energy to then use it in mechanical work.
2. “The inlet valves close while the piston moves forward compressing the fuel-air mixture. Once maximally compressed, the mixture is ignited by the spark plug.”
3. “The burning mixture reaches high-pressure and expands to push the piston back and perform work on the car.”
4. The burnt remains (exhaust) are squeezed out as the outlet valve opens and the piston pushes inward again.
The original source of energy in this system (car engine) is the chemical potential energy within the hydrocarbon bonds in the gasoline. Fuel is burnt so make the energy within these bonds more accessible to form stronger bonds with the oxygen in the air. by burning the gasoline as hot as possible and releasing the exhaust at the closest possible ambient temperature (ensures the greatest amount of heat is used) maximum efficiency is attained. One way to allow exhaust to cool is by providing the exhaust gases to expand as much as possible before being removed.
The environmental “issue” with the use of fossil fuels, especially in ICEs, is that fossils fuels are carbon-rich nonrenewable energy deposits. Fossil fuels are extremely polluting because their combustion releases sulfur, nitrogen oxides, and carbon dioxide. Fossil fuel emissions make up more than half of the global total of CO2 emissions.
To tie it back to thermodynamics, creating efficient ICEs will not only reduce the amount of needed “dirty” fossil fuels. And by reducing the quantity of fossils fuels needed, less are burned, and less CO2 lingers in the atmosphere.
FIVE
ABSTRACT:
“The Truth About My Carbon Footprint” (Oct. 9) revealed the ugly side of my carbon footprint in Puerto Rico. In order to get a broad estimate of my emissions, I used two carbon footprint calculators. And although these tools gave me two widely different readings, they were both on the higher end of the scale. According to www.nature.org and www.climatecrisis.net, I was emitting 18.1 and 29 tones per year, respectively. In a nutshell, my emissions were sky-high because I travel long distances a few times a year. Now, these readings do have sources of error because both of these sites did not list Puerto Rico as a state or country. Therefore, I said I lived in Hawaii because it is also a tropical island (no heating required) and the majority of houses are equipped with air conditioning.
EXCERPT:
To measure my (ex)carbon footprint I used the websites: www.climatecrisis.net & www.nature.org. To my astonishment, both calculators estimated my footprint to be more than double of that of the average American (18.1 and 29 respectively). I, the vegetarian who renounced meat because its industry is detrimental to the environment, almost fell out of my chair. Embarrassed, I went to evaluate the factors that contributed to these calculations. First of all, neither of the sites listed Puerto Rico as place of residence. This is an extremely important factor because electrical energy is relatively expensive when compared to other states. So when I inserted my yearly energy bill (which is quite high because my parents are not environmentally conscientious) I knew its reading was slightly erroneous.
General facts that my readings depended on:
-I recycle everything recyclable
-I drive a small car
-No need for heating oil
-I travel twice a year to Europe and a few times a year to contiguous USA.
-I live in a house (w/ a pool)
-We are a family of 4
-I don't eat meat
My readings were high for two main reasons:
1. My electric bill does not provide an accurate account of the amount of energy consumed because PR was not listed as a state or country. (Clearly this is a factor I cannot control)
2. I travel...a lot. (Factor within my power, but hard to overcome.)
Although there is a difference of 19 tons per year in my readings and currently I lack an accurate estimation of my carbon emissions, I can easily guess that my emissions levels are high.
SIX
ABSTRACT:
The objective of “Clean Coal is SCANDOLOUS!” (Nov. 9) was to investigate the subject of “clean” coal or the carbon-capture and storage technologies. This post first aimed to understand the nature of flue gas in order to then explain how these technologies “clean” the coal. This topic, currently under intense spotlight since the cancelation of FutureGen, is an important interim energy option. Ideally, it would be better to find a way to replace fossil fuels but since that is not yet a feasible option, taking advantage of the clean coal technologies is almost the next best thing.
EXCERPT:
We all know coal is the dirtiest of all fossil fuels. When coal burns (as to make steam that turn turbines in order to generate electricity) it releases carbon dioxide and other emissions in flue gas. The "clean" technology in clean coal means that the degree of flue gas contamination is decreased. There are various technologies available like Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) systems, which avoid burning coal altogether. IGCC systems burn carbon and hydrogen in a gas turbine to make electricity and heat energy, which powers a steam turbine. Yet, the most “clean” and therefore promising technology is carbon-capture and storage, which catches and isolates carbon dioxide emissions from power plants.
Three carbon capture technologies include: flue-gas separation which removes CO2 with steam; oxy-fuel combustion burns the fuel in pure or enriched oxygen to create a flue gas composed primarily of CO2 and water; and pre-combustion capture is a gasification process that removes CO2 before it's burned.
After capture, secure containers sequester the CO2 to avoid or stall its reentry into the atmosphere. The containers face two storage options: geologic which injects CO2 deep inside the Earth’s crust in exhausted gas and oil fields and oceanic (new technology that could slightly decrease pH and harm marine habitats) which injects liquid CO2 into waters 500 to 3,000 meters deep, where it dissolves under pressure.
Realistically speaking, as long as coal is cheap and readily available, it will be really difficult to wane ourselves off of coal. That is why is it so important to take advantage of these “clean” technologies as long as we’re still using this dirty fossil fuel. Although some power plants have invested in adopting these technologies, these practices yet to be widely used. The construction of the FutureGen Power Plant, which not only proposed to generate electricity using carbon-capture and storage technology and also produce hydrogen, was canceled earlier this year. The clean coal adoption process is looking a bit grim…as environmental activists advocate that the use of coal is never 'clean' and the lender banks and the government deem it too expensive to get it rolling.
SEVEN
ABSTRACT:
This post (Nov. 10) was about President-elect Obama’s environmental plans for the United States. It’s safe to say that Obama is aware that climate change is a global crisis and has intentions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and invest in alternative energy sources. Although his New Energy for American Plan is less rigorous than what environmentalists would like, it is safe to say that it has definite goals that will hopefully set the United States “green” path.
EXCERPT:
The Obama and Biden Website summarizes the Obama‐Biden comprehensive New Energy for America plan will:
• Provide short‐term relief to American families facing pain at the pump
• Help create five million new jobs by strategically investing $150 billion over the next ten years
to catalyze private efforts to build a clean energy future.
• Within 10 years save more oil than we currently import from the Middle East and Venezuela combined
•Put 1 million Plug‐In Hybrid cars – cars that can get up to 150 miles per gallon – on the road by 2015, cars that we will work to make sure are built here in America
• Ensure 10 percent of our electricity comes from renewable sources by 2012, and 25 percent by 2025
Obama Supports:
1. Hastening the expansion of carbon-capture-and –storage and “clean coal” technology.
2. The carbon dioxide cap-and-trade sytem, similar the schemes in effect the European Union and the U.S. Northeast. Obama’s plans to cut the U.S.’s emissions of greenhouse so that by gases to 1990 levels by 2020 and 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. His proposal states that some of the money auctioned by the cap-and-trade permits will “fund renewable energy alternatives and other infrastructure upgrades.
3. Expanding the use of renewable energy. By the end of his first term, Obama intends to have increased the use of non-renewable energy for electricity from the current 8% to 10%.
4. Investing in ‘green collar’ jobs to “replace industrial ‘blue collar’ jobs lost in recent decades as steel mills and factories closed.”
5. Obama supports offshore oil exploration in areas where it is already permitted.
6. Corn-based ethanol, something he has called a good “transition technology” away from fossil fuels.
7. Raising the federal fuel efficiency requirements (with the hope that U.S. automakers will consider plug-in hybrids and other alternative fuel vehicles.
Obama Opposes:
1. Offshore drilling in pristine areas such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Obama is Silent On:
1. Global deforestation crisis
2. Issues of animal extinction
3. Hazardous waste trafficking
EIGHT
ABSTRACT:
“Pass On The Beef!” (Nov. 2) was an investigation into the ugly side of the meat industry. My main purpose was to obtain facts and statistics that would not only help support but also explain my decision to become a vegetarian. This excerpt concerns the topics of animal cruelty and the inadequate use resources.
EXCERPT:
I keep getting questions as to why I’m a vegetarian. People who are aware of animal cruelty in factory farms, wide use of antibiotics, deforestation for the meat industry, and large contribution to methane emissions nod understandingly. But lately I’ve had a really hard time explaining to people who can’t comprehend my logic because I’m a bit rusty on my facts and statistics. In other words, I know why I don’t eat meat but I’m having a hard time effectively communicating this to an ignorant audience. This is why I have decided to hit two birds with one stone and investigate DEEPER into the meat industry for my personal knowledge and so that in the future I will be better equipped to inform others.
Animal Cruelty: I’m not going to elaborate on this topic because we’ve all seen the pictures. I just want to say two things. First, in essence, I don’t believe that eating meat is a “sin.” For centuries it has ensured human survival. But we’ve gotten to the point where the methods of factory farming and the large-scale environmental effects are too loud to be ignored. I disagree with factory farms, deforestation, and use of antibiotics, animal cruelty that involves meat eating.
Resources: Factory farming wastes resources. The US spends more than 70% of the grains and cereals it grows and about 50% of its water resources to raise animals for food. Approximately, 80% of the agricultural land in the United States is used for animal farming.
In a world where 923 million are hungry this is incomprehensible.
NINE
ABSTRACT:
This post (Dec. 3) is a demonstration of what I learned through my research of nuclear energy. This excerpt is a basic explanations about fundamental characteristics of nuclear generators and how electricity is generated within the nuclear plant.
EXCERPT:
Nuclear energy specifically utilized for generating electrical power has two substantial advantages: it is sustainable and clean. Nuclear technology is sustainable because its fuel is abundant enough to last for centuries and it is clean because its generation and consumption essentially does not emit greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. It has been technologically proven that nuclear power has the capacity to provide clean and sustainable energy on a global scale because not only are these technologies readily available, they are potent enough to meet global energy demands.
Today approximately 440 nuclear reactors provide about 16% of the world’s electrical energy and 20% of the United States’ electricity.
PRODUCTION OF ELECTRICAL ENERGY
The nuclear reactor is the heart of a nuclear power plant. Its basic function is to preserve a fission chain reaction in order to extract its valuable energy. More specifically, nuclear reactors are responsible for fissioning uranium, which yields the thermal energy that produces the high-pressure steam that drives a turbine connected to an electric generator. This steam is condensed using a nearby body of water, and this cycle continues. Cooling towers release waste heat into atmosphere to avoid thermal pollution of the water sources.
All the nuclear plant reactors in the United States are light-water reactors (LWRs), which means it utilizes H20 as both the moderator and coolant. In order to maintain the multiplication factor at one neutron, a moderator slows down the neutrons. Water is an exemplary moderator because the single protons in the hydrogen collide with the neutrons thereby reducing their speed. Water is also an effective coolant because it successfully captures the energy of the random thermal motion and transports it to the turbines where it works to produce electricity. The control rods are neutron-absorbing substances found between the uranium fuel rods. They are responsible for maintaining the multiplication rate at one by either increasing or decreasing the reaction rate.
The pressure vessel contains the nuclear fuel and the water circulates among the fuel rods in order to slow the neutrons for more effective fission and remove the thermal energy generated by the fission. About one-third of power reactors are boiling-water reactors (BWRs) and the rest are pressurized water reactors (PWRs). BWRs allow the water in the reactor vessel to boil, while PWRs maintain the mildly radioactive water at a high pressure so it does not boil. A steam generator moves the heated water from the reactor to a secondary pipe system containing boiling water, which in turn drive the turbines.
What My Final Has Taught Me
This final project has been extremely educational for a variety of reasons. The poster presentation gave me an incentive to research and learn about nuclear energy. The first time I heard the term was when President Bush threatened Saddam Hussein to admit his possession of nuclear weapons. The topic came up again when Bush accused Iran of uranium enrichment for weaponry. Not only is the topic of nuclear energy relevant to our course, but as an international affairs major its important that I understand nuclear energy because it's a currently an issue of international debate. All in all, I enjoyed learning about nuclear technology.
Here's an excerpt from my section of the poster...
Nuclear energy specifically utilized for generating electrical power has two substantial advantages: it is sustainable and clean. Nuclear technology is sustainable because its fuel is abundant enough to last for centuries and it is clean because its generation and consumption essentially does not emit greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. It has been technologically proven that nuclear power has the capacity to provide clean and sustainable energy on a global scale because not only are these technologies readily available, they are potent enough to meet global energy demands.
Today approximately 440 nuclear reactors provide about 16% of the world’s electrical energy and 20% of the United States’ electricity.
PRODUCTION OF ELECTRICAL ENERGY
The nuclear reactor is the heart of a nuclear power plant. Its basic function is to preserve a fission chain reaction in order to extract its valuable energy. More specifically, nuclear reactors are responsible for fissioning uranium, which yields the thermal energy that produces the high-pressure steam that drives a turbine connected to an electric generator. This steam is condensed using a nearby body of water, and this cycle continues. Cooling towers release waste heat into atmosphere to avoid thermal pollution of the water sources.
All the nuclear plant reactors in the United States are light-water reactors (LWRs), which means it utilizes H20 as both the moderator and coolant. In order to maintain the multiplication factor at one neutron, a moderator slows down the neutrons. Water is an exemplary moderator because the single protons in the hydrogen collide with the neutrons thereby reducing their speed. Water is also an effective coolant because it successfully captures the energy of the random thermal motion and transports it to the turbines where it works to produce electricity. The control rods are neutron-absorbing substances found between the uranium fuel rods. They are responsible for maintaining the multiplication rate at one by either increasing or decreasing the reaction rate.
The pressure vessel contains the nuclear fuel and the water circulates among the fuel rods in order to slow the neutrons for more effective fission and remove the thermal energy generated by the fission. About one-third of power reactors are boiling-water reactors (BWRs) and the rest are pressurized water reactors (PWRs). BWRs allow the water in the reactor vessel to boil, while PWRs maintain the mildly radioactive water at a high pressure so it does not boil. A steam generator moves the heated water from the reactor to a secondary pipe system containing boiling water, which in turn drive the turbines.
Here's an excerpt from my section of the poster...
Nuclear energy specifically utilized for generating electrical power has two substantial advantages: it is sustainable and clean. Nuclear technology is sustainable because its fuel is abundant enough to last for centuries and it is clean because its generation and consumption essentially does not emit greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. It has been technologically proven that nuclear power has the capacity to provide clean and sustainable energy on a global scale because not only are these technologies readily available, they are potent enough to meet global energy demands.
Today approximately 440 nuclear reactors provide about 16% of the world’s electrical energy and 20% of the United States’ electricity.
PRODUCTION OF ELECTRICAL ENERGY
The nuclear reactor is the heart of a nuclear power plant. Its basic function is to preserve a fission chain reaction in order to extract its valuable energy. More specifically, nuclear reactors are responsible for fissioning uranium, which yields the thermal energy that produces the high-pressure steam that drives a turbine connected to an electric generator. This steam is condensed using a nearby body of water, and this cycle continues. Cooling towers release waste heat into atmosphere to avoid thermal pollution of the water sources.
All the nuclear plant reactors in the United States are light-water reactors (LWRs), which means it utilizes H20 as both the moderator and coolant. In order to maintain the multiplication factor at one neutron, a moderator slows down the neutrons. Water is an exemplary moderator because the single protons in the hydrogen collide with the neutrons thereby reducing their speed. Water is also an effective coolant because it successfully captures the energy of the random thermal motion and transports it to the turbines where it works to produce electricity. The control rods are neutron-absorbing substances found between the uranium fuel rods. They are responsible for maintaining the multiplication rate at one by either increasing or decreasing the reaction rate.
The pressure vessel contains the nuclear fuel and the water circulates among the fuel rods in order to slow the neutrons for more effective fission and remove the thermal energy generated by the fission. About one-third of power reactors are boiling-water reactors (BWRs) and the rest are pressurized water reactors (PWRs). BWRs allow the water in the reactor vessel to boil, while PWRs maintain the mildly radioactive water at a high pressure so it does not boil. A steam generator moves the heated water from the reactor to a secondary pipe system containing boiling water, which in turn drive the turbines.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Reflection
It's been a while since my blog entry has included a personal reflection, so here I go...
The Classroom
I really enjoy the hands-on way the class is conducted. I find it extremely educational because, for me at least, the best way to learn is through personal effort and investigation. Probably, one of the main reasons this has worked for me is because I like to learn in an unconventional non-learning type of way. The articles we read in groups and then present do just that: they expose us to a 'real life' knowledge. Also, I find it educational listening to the other groups and asking them questions. This method has exposed me to grim future of "clean coal," significant role of small farms, and various new technologies such as converting coal into gasoline.
The Blog
To be honest, at first I was a bit skeptical on the blog thing. Probably because apart from this being my 1st blog, I really didn't understand what we would be posting. But as the school year progressed, and my blogging methods evolved, I found myself learning more and more. I attribute most of this learning to the investigations I've reported. My motto has been if there's an itch or a doubt then find to get rid of it. I'm actually quite glad we have a blog because it gives me an incentive to find an answer to my environmental doubts. My investigations on factory farming and "clean coal," just to name two, have been...fun. There, I said it. I like to learn and get a hands on experience in the cyber net.
The Lab
I know you've gotten a lot of feedback on the lab, so I won't pour my heart out. To summarize my critique, I can say that for an unconventional science course we have a conventional laboratory. The main problem with this is that we're not really learning anything and what we're actually graded is on the "completeness" of the Abstract. They're labs that barely relate to what we're actually learning in class. It would be more educational to do the labs backward. In other words, instead of seeing things at the micro level and then forming conclusions and so on, starting at the marco level and applying them to the real world.
The Plenary
The speakers have been good. Each brings his or her own biases for the topic presented. And although at the surface this might seem well, biased, the truth is the world is biased. Everything depends on who someone works for, what they represent, personal opinions... etc. We need to learn to accept and be able to discern what people stand for and their points of view. I really enjoyed Brenda Pierce from the USGS. I learned a lot from her and new possibilities for fossil fuels. Although at times I found her presentation hard to follow because I lacked sufficient back-ground knowledge on the subject, I learned things I had no idea they even existed. I learned things I should learn more about.
In essence, the plenary experience takes learning out of the classroom and puts it in the real world. It gives us a macro view of the relevnce of our course.
I do have one critique: more people are either asleep or on the computer than actually listening. It's extremely rude to speakers who have taken time to speak to us.
The Classroom
I really enjoy the hands-on way the class is conducted. I find it extremely educational because, for me at least, the best way to learn is through personal effort and investigation. Probably, one of the main reasons this has worked for me is because I like to learn in an unconventional non-learning type of way. The articles we read in groups and then present do just that: they expose us to a 'real life' knowledge. Also, I find it educational listening to the other groups and asking them questions. This method has exposed me to grim future of "clean coal," significant role of small farms, and various new technologies such as converting coal into gasoline.
The Blog
To be honest, at first I was a bit skeptical on the blog thing. Probably because apart from this being my 1st blog, I really didn't understand what we would be posting. But as the school year progressed, and my blogging methods evolved, I found myself learning more and more. I attribute most of this learning to the investigations I've reported. My motto has been if there's an itch or a doubt then find to get rid of it. I'm actually quite glad we have a blog because it gives me an incentive to find an answer to my environmental doubts. My investigations on factory farming and "clean coal," just to name two, have been...fun. There, I said it. I like to learn and get a hands on experience in the cyber net.
The Lab
I know you've gotten a lot of feedback on the lab, so I won't pour my heart out. To summarize my critique, I can say that for an unconventional science course we have a conventional laboratory. The main problem with this is that we're not really learning anything and what we're actually graded is on the "completeness" of the Abstract. They're labs that barely relate to what we're actually learning in class. It would be more educational to do the labs backward. In other words, instead of seeing things at the micro level and then forming conclusions and so on, starting at the marco level and applying them to the real world.
The Plenary
The speakers have been good. Each brings his or her own biases for the topic presented. And although at the surface this might seem well, biased, the truth is the world is biased. Everything depends on who someone works for, what they represent, personal opinions... etc. We need to learn to accept and be able to discern what people stand for and their points of view. I really enjoyed Brenda Pierce from the USGS. I learned a lot from her and new possibilities for fossil fuels. Although at times I found her presentation hard to follow because I lacked sufficient back-ground knowledge on the subject, I learned things I had no idea they even existed. I learned things I should learn more about.
In essence, the plenary experience takes learning out of the classroom and puts it in the real world. It gives us a macro view of the relevnce of our course.
I do have one critique: more people are either asleep or on the computer than actually listening. It's extremely rude to speakers who have taken time to speak to us.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Making up for lost blogs: Oct. 26
The Election and the Envirnoment
In the light of the new election, I decided it would be both interesting and educational to look into President- elect Obama's upcoming environmental plans and policies...
The Obama and Biden Website summarizes the Obama‐Biden comprehensive New Energy for America plan will:
• Provide short‐term relief to American families facing pain at the pump
• Help create five million new jobs by strategically investing $150 billion over the next ten years
to catalyze private efforts to build a clean energy future.
• Within 10 years save more oil than we currently import from the Middle East and Venezuela
combined
•Put 1 million Plug‐In Hybrid cars – cars that can get up to 150 miles per gallon – on the road by
2015, cars that we will work to make sure are built here in America
• Ensure 10 percent of our electricity comes from renewable sources by 2012, and 25 percent by
2025
• Implement an ecpercent by 2050
Obama Supports:
1. Hastening the expansion of carbon-capture-and –storage and “clean coal” technology.
2. The carbon dioxide cap-and-trade sytem, similar the schemes in effect the European Union and the U.S. Northeast. Obama’s plans to cut the U.S.’s emissions of greenhouse so that by gases to 1990 levels by 2020 and 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. His proposal states that some of the money auctioned by the cap-and-trade permits will “fund renewable energy alternatives and other infrastructure upgrades.
3. Expanding the use of renewable energy. By the end of his first term, Obama intends to have increased the use of non-renewable energy for electricity from the current 8% to 10%.
4. Investing in ‘green collar’ jobs to “replace industrial ‘blue collar’ jobs lost in recent decades as steel mills and factories closed.”
5. Obama supports offshore oil exploration in areas where it is already permitted.
6. Corn-based ethanol, something he has called a good “transition technology” away from fossil fuels.
7. Raising the federal fuel efficiency requirements (with the hope that U.S. automakers will consider plug-in hybrids and other alternative fuel vehicles.
Obama Opposes:
1. Offshore drilling in pristine areas such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Obama is Silent On:
1. Global deforestation crisis
2. Issues of animal extinction
3. Hazardous waste trafficking
-----
SOURCES:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/newenergy
http://www.sciam.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=what-an-obama-win-means-for-the-env-2008-11-05
In the light of the new election, I decided it would be both interesting and educational to look into President- elect Obama's upcoming environmental plans and policies...
The Obama and Biden Website summarizes the Obama‐Biden comprehensive New Energy for America plan will:
• Provide short‐term relief to American families facing pain at the pump
• Help create five million new jobs by strategically investing $150 billion over the next ten years
to catalyze private efforts to build a clean energy future.
• Within 10 years save more oil than we currently import from the Middle East and Venezuela
combined
•Put 1 million Plug‐In Hybrid cars – cars that can get up to 150 miles per gallon – on the road by
2015, cars that we will work to make sure are built here in America
• Ensure 10 percent of our electricity comes from renewable sources by 2012, and 25 percent by
2025
• Implement an ecpercent by 2050
Obama Supports:
1. Hastening the expansion of carbon-capture-and –storage and “clean coal” technology.
2. The carbon dioxide cap-and-trade sytem, similar the schemes in effect the European Union and the U.S. Northeast. Obama’s plans to cut the U.S.’s emissions of greenhouse so that by gases to 1990 levels by 2020 and 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. His proposal states that some of the money auctioned by the cap-and-trade permits will “fund renewable energy alternatives and other infrastructure upgrades.
3. Expanding the use of renewable energy. By the end of his first term, Obama intends to have increased the use of non-renewable energy for electricity from the current 8% to 10%.
4. Investing in ‘green collar’ jobs to “replace industrial ‘blue collar’ jobs lost in recent decades as steel mills and factories closed.”
5. Obama supports offshore oil exploration in areas where it is already permitted.
6. Corn-based ethanol, something he has called a good “transition technology” away from fossil fuels.
7. Raising the federal fuel efficiency requirements (with the hope that U.S. automakers will consider plug-in hybrids and other alternative fuel vehicles.
Obama Opposes:
1. Offshore drilling in pristine areas such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Obama is Silent On:
1. Global deforestation crisis
2. Issues of animal extinction
3. Hazardous waste trafficking
-----
SOURCES:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/newenergy
http://www.sciam.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=what-an-obama-win-means-for-the-env-2008-11-05
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Clean Coal is SCANDOLOUS!
This week my group presented the Scientific American article titled "Clean" Coal Power Plant Canceled--Hydrogen Economy, Too. This was about the fifth time this semester I've heard or read about the topic. Interested on the subject, I decided to be ignorant no more...
We all know coal is the dirtiest of all fossil fuels. When coal burns (as to make steam that turn turbines in order to generate electricity) it releases carbon dioxide and other emissions in flue gas. The "clean" technology in clean coal means that the degree of flue gas contamination is decreased. There are various technologies available like Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) systems, which avoid burning coal altogether. IGCC systems burn carbon and hydrogen in a gas turbine to make electricity and heat energy with powers a steam turbine. Yet, the most “clean” and therefore promising technology is carbon capture and storage, which catches and isolates carbon dioxide emissions from like power plants.
Three carbon capture technologies include: flue-gas separation which removes CO2 with steam; oxy-fuel combustion burns the fuel in pure or enriched oxygen to create a flue gas composed primarily of CO2 and water; and pre-combustion capture is a gasification process that removes CO2 before it's burned.
After capture, secure containers sequester the CO2 to avoid or stall its reentry into the atmosphere. The containers face two storage options: geologic which injects CO2 deep inside the Earth’s crust in exhausted gas and oil fields and oceanic (new technology that could slightly decrease pH and harm marine habitats) which injects liquid CO2 into waters 500 to 3,000 meters deep, where it dissolves under pressure.
Realistically speaking, as long as coal is cheap and readily available, it will be really difficult to wane ourselves off of coal. That is why it it so important to take advantage of these “clean” technologies as long as we’re still using this dirty fossil fuel. Although some power plants have invested in adopting these technologies, these practices yet to be widely used. The construction of the FutureGen Power Plant, which not only proposed to generate electricity using carbon-capture and storage technology and also produce hydrogen, was canceled earlier this year. The clean coal adoption process is looking a bit grim…as environmental activists advocate that the use of coal is never 'clean' and the lender banks and the government deem it too expensive to get it rolling.
----
SOURCES:
http://science.howstuffworks.com/clean-coal1.htm
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=clean-coal-power-plant-canceled-hydrogen-economy-too
We all know coal is the dirtiest of all fossil fuels. When coal burns (as to make steam that turn turbines in order to generate electricity) it releases carbon dioxide and other emissions in flue gas. The "clean" technology in clean coal means that the degree of flue gas contamination is decreased. There are various technologies available like Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) systems, which avoid burning coal altogether. IGCC systems burn carbon and hydrogen in a gas turbine to make electricity and heat energy with powers a steam turbine. Yet, the most “clean” and therefore promising technology is carbon capture and storage, which catches and isolates carbon dioxide emissions from like power plants.
Three carbon capture technologies include: flue-gas separation which removes CO2 with steam; oxy-fuel combustion burns the fuel in pure or enriched oxygen to create a flue gas composed primarily of CO2 and water; and pre-combustion capture is a gasification process that removes CO2 before it's burned.
After capture, secure containers sequester the CO2 to avoid or stall its reentry into the atmosphere. The containers face two storage options: geologic which injects CO2 deep inside the Earth’s crust in exhausted gas and oil fields and oceanic (new technology that could slightly decrease pH and harm marine habitats) which injects liquid CO2 into waters 500 to 3,000 meters deep, where it dissolves under pressure.
Realistically speaking, as long as coal is cheap and readily available, it will be really difficult to wane ourselves off of coal. That is why it it so important to take advantage of these “clean” technologies as long as we’re still using this dirty fossil fuel. Although some power plants have invested in adopting these technologies, these practices yet to be widely used. The construction of the FutureGen Power Plant, which not only proposed to generate electricity using carbon-capture and storage technology and also produce hydrogen, was canceled earlier this year. The clean coal adoption process is looking a bit grim…as environmental activists advocate that the use of coal is never 'clean' and the lender banks and the government deem it too expensive to get it rolling.
----
SOURCES:
http://science.howstuffworks.com/clean-coal1.htm
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=clean-coal-power-plant-canceled-hydrogen-economy-too
Making up for lost blogs: Oct. 20
I had a basic notion that the electronics industry was hurting the environment. Something about batteries containing toxic substances that contaminate landfills. And also something else about the increasing demands for the the elements coltan and cassiterite, both for which the Democratic Republic of Congo is fighting an atrocious civil war the West is willing to overlook. So, while I was researching environmental consequences of the electronics industries I came upon an extremely informative article titled Electronics Industry Changes the Climate with New Greenhouse Gas (www.sciam.com).
Ugh Oh...There's a New Contaminator on the Block!
Nitrogen triflouride (NF3) is a greenhouse gas that has 17,000 times the planet-warming capacity of carbon dioxide. Currently, this gas is used as a cleaning agent in both the semiconductor industry to clean the chambers in which silicon chips are made and in the manufacture of the thin-film solar cell used in flat panel LCD screens. Presently, it adds about 0.04 % of the global warming effect created by carbon dioxide, but the danger stands in the fact that as flat panel LCD televisions become standard, more gas will be utilized in their manufacture. “This gas is not regulated and electronics companies are not required to keep a record of how much the use or emit.”
In the past, the semiconductor industry NF3 (one of the first industries to use NF3 in the 1980s) estimated that during the cleaning process, only 2% of this gas escaped into the air. The first-ever measurements of nitrogen triflouride levels in the atmosphere were published recently in the journal Geographical Research Letters. The results: emissions are as high as 16%. Studies estimate the production of the gas is nearly doubling every year.
Some large companies like Toshiba, Samsung, and LG are trying to solve the problem by adopting alternatives to NF3 . They have installed systems that generate fluorine (by splitting hydrogen fluoride) at some of their LCD and semiconductor facilities. This process, with no direct global warming risks, requires less energy than breaking nitrogen triflouride. The downsides of this system are that it requires significant upfront costs that prevent smaller LCD manufacturers from adopting this method. Also, fluorine is a toxic and corrosive gas and accidental releases lead to a variety of harmful consequences.
NF3 needs to be closely monitored and its vital that electronics companies begin to report it manufacture and emissions. Carbon dioxide is not the only gas we need to worry about. The increasing demenad for the developement new technology comes with new environemtenal consequences WE need to be aware of.
-----
SOURCES:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=electronics-industry-contributes-new-greenhouse-gas
Ugh Oh...There's a New Contaminator on the Block!
Nitrogen triflouride (NF3) is a greenhouse gas that has 17,000 times the planet-warming capacity of carbon dioxide. Currently, this gas is used as a cleaning agent in both the semiconductor industry to clean the chambers in which silicon chips are made and in the manufacture of the thin-film solar cell used in flat panel LCD screens. Presently, it adds about 0.04 % of the global warming effect created by carbon dioxide, but the danger stands in the fact that as flat panel LCD televisions become standard, more gas will be utilized in their manufacture. “This gas is not regulated and electronics companies are not required to keep a record of how much the use or emit.”
In the past, the semiconductor industry NF3 (one of the first industries to use NF3 in the 1980s) estimated that during the cleaning process, only 2% of this gas escaped into the air. The first-ever measurements of nitrogen triflouride levels in the atmosphere were published recently in the journal Geographical Research Letters. The results: emissions are as high as 16%. Studies estimate the production of the gas is nearly doubling every year.
Some large companies like Toshiba, Samsung, and LG are trying to solve the problem by adopting alternatives to NF3 . They have installed systems that generate fluorine (by splitting hydrogen fluoride) at some of their LCD and semiconductor facilities. This process, with no direct global warming risks, requires less energy than breaking nitrogen triflouride. The downsides of this system are that it requires significant upfront costs that prevent smaller LCD manufacturers from adopting this method. Also, fluorine is a toxic and corrosive gas and accidental releases lead to a variety of harmful consequences.
NF3 needs to be closely monitored and its vital that electronics companies begin to report it manufacture and emissions. Carbon dioxide is not the only gas we need to worry about. The increasing demenad for the developement new technology comes with new environemtenal consequences WE need to be aware of.
-----
SOURCES:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=electronics-industry-contributes-new-greenhouse-gas
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Making up for lost blogs: Oct. 13
Before this year, it never occurred to me the relevance of thermodynamics in the study of environmental sciences. But if there is one thing I’ve learned this year, it is that EVERYTHING has something to do with our environment. Heat is a form of energy and there stands the intimate relationship between thermodynamics and the environment…
Heat is both a form of energy and a form of motion (at the atomic level). The internal combustion engine (ICE), like the one found in cars, makes use of both of the forms of heat. The main characteristic of an internal combustion engine is that it burns fuel inside the engine itself in order to convert it into useful work. An ICE’s efficiency depends on the percentage of the fuel (input) that can be converted into useful work.
First, the battery (ex. car battery) powers the starter motor… A typical ICE functions on a 4-step cycle:
1. “The piston moves down the cylinder creating a partial vacuum and the inlet valve opens to introduce air and some fuel, such as petrol.” A car, for example, first converts the chemical energy of the fuel into thermal energy to then use it in mechanical work.
2. “The inlet valves close while the piston moves forward compressing the fuel-air mixture. Once maximally compressed, the mixture is ignited by the spark plug.”
3. “The burning mixture reaches high-pressure and expands to push the piston back and perform work on the car.”
4. The burnt remains (exhaust) are squeezed out as the outlet valve opens and the piston pushes inward again.
The original source of energy in this system (car engine) is the chemical potential energy within the hydrocarbon bonds in the gasoline. Fuel is burnt so make the energy within these bonds more accessible to form stronger bonds with the oxygen in the air. by burning the gasoline as hot as possible and releasing the exhaust at the closest possible ambient temperature (ensures the greatest amount of heat is used) maximum efficiency is attained. One way to allow exhaust to cool is by providing the exhaust gases to expand as much as possible before being removed.
The environmental “issue” with the use of fossil fuels, especially in ICEs, is that fossils fuels are carbon-rich nonrenewable energy deposits. Fossil fuels are extremely polluting because their combustion releases sulfur, nitrogen oxides, and carbon dioxide. Fossil fuel emissions make up more than half of the global total of CO2 emissions.
To tie it back to thermodynamics, creating efficient ICEs will not only reduce the amount of needed “dirty” fossil fuels. And by reducing the quantity of fossils fuels needed, less are burned, and less CO2 lingers in the atmosphere.
--------------------------
SOURCES:
http://staff.science.nus.edu.sg/~parwani/htw/c2/node37.html
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/globalghg.html
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Pass On The Beef!
I keep getting questions as to why I’m a vegetarian. People who are aware of animal cruelty in factory farms, wide use of antibiotics, deforestation for the meat industry, and large contribution to methane emissions nod understandingly. But lately I’ve had a really hard time explaining to people who can’t comprehend my logic because I’m a bit rusty on my facts and statistics. In other words, I know why I don’t eat meat but I’m having a hard time effectively communicating this to an ignorant audience. This is why I have decided to hit two birds with one stone and investigate DEEPER into the meat industry for my personal knowledge and so that in the future I will be better equipped to inform others.
Animal Cruelty: I’m not going to elaborate on this topic because we’ve all seen the pictures. I just want to say two things. First, in essence, I don’t believe that eating meat is a “sin.” For centuries, it has ensured human survival. But we’ve gotten to the point where the methods of factory farming and the large-scale environmental effects are too loud to be ignored. I disagree with factory farms, deforestation, and use of antibiotics, animal cruelty that involves meat eating.
Environment: In 2006, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization released a report titled Livestock’s Long Shadow. Although this report was released two years ago, there have been no major changes in the livestock sector as to indicate significantly altered figures and statistics. The report revealed that the livestock sector generates 18% more greenhouse gas emissions as measured in CO2 than transport. “When emissions from land use and land use change are included, the livestock sector accounts for 9 percent of CO2 deriving from human-related activities, but produces a much larger share of even more harmful greenhouse gases.” Yet, manure accounts for 65% of human-related nitrous oxide emissions, which has 296 times the Global Warming Potential (GWP) of CO2. Also, 37% of all human-induced methane (23 times as warming as CO2 and produced by digestive systems) and 64% of ammonia, a contributor to acid rain are byproducts of the livestock sector.
The report also exposes that livestock now use 30 percent of the earth’s entire land surface, including 33 percent of the global arable land used to produce feed for livestock. Especially in South America, deforestation is an incentive to create new pastures and some 70 percent of former forests in the Amazon have been turned over to grazing.
Furthermore, the livestock sector is a major source of land and water degradation. About 20 percent of pastures considered as degraded through overgrazing, compaction and erosion. The livestock business is among the most damaging sectors to the earth’s increasingly scarce water resources, contributing among other things to water pollution, euthropication (accelerated growth and overcrowding of plants in a body of water thereby depleting oxygen), and the degeneration of coral reefs. Widespread overgrazing disturbs water cycles, reducing replenishment of above and below ground water resources. The major polluting agents include: animal wastes, antibiotics, hormones, chemicals from tanneries, fertilizers, and the pesticides used to spray feed crops. Significant amounts of water are withdrawn for the production of feed.
Resources: Factory farming wastes resources. The US spends more than 70% of the grains and cereals it grows and about 50% of its water resources to raise animals for food. Approximately, 80% of the agricultural land in the United States is used for animal farming.
I believe that in a world where 923 million are hungry this is incomprehensible.
SOURCES:
http://www.celsias.com/article/what-the-meat-industry-doesnt-want-you-to-see/
http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/index.html
Animal Cruelty: I’m not going to elaborate on this topic because we’ve all seen the pictures. I just want to say two things. First, in essence, I don’t believe that eating meat is a “sin.” For centuries, it has ensured human survival. But we’ve gotten to the point where the methods of factory farming and the large-scale environmental effects are too loud to be ignored. I disagree with factory farms, deforestation, and use of antibiotics, animal cruelty that involves meat eating.
Environment: In 2006, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization released a report titled Livestock’s Long Shadow. Although this report was released two years ago, there have been no major changes in the livestock sector as to indicate significantly altered figures and statistics. The report revealed that the livestock sector generates 18% more greenhouse gas emissions as measured in CO2 than transport. “When emissions from land use and land use change are included, the livestock sector accounts for 9 percent of CO2 deriving from human-related activities, but produces a much larger share of even more harmful greenhouse gases.” Yet, manure accounts for 65% of human-related nitrous oxide emissions, which has 296 times the Global Warming Potential (GWP) of CO2. Also, 37% of all human-induced methane (23 times as warming as CO2 and produced by digestive systems) and 64% of ammonia, a contributor to acid rain are byproducts of the livestock sector.
The report also exposes that livestock now use 30 percent of the earth’s entire land surface, including 33 percent of the global arable land used to produce feed for livestock. Especially in South America, deforestation is an incentive to create new pastures and some 70 percent of former forests in the Amazon have been turned over to grazing.
Furthermore, the livestock sector is a major source of land and water degradation. About 20 percent of pastures considered as degraded through overgrazing, compaction and erosion. The livestock business is among the most damaging sectors to the earth’s increasingly scarce water resources, contributing among other things to water pollution, euthropication (accelerated growth and overcrowding of plants in a body of water thereby depleting oxygen), and the degeneration of coral reefs. Widespread overgrazing disturbs water cycles, reducing replenishment of above and below ground water resources. The major polluting agents include: animal wastes, antibiotics, hormones, chemicals from tanneries, fertilizers, and the pesticides used to spray feed crops. Significant amounts of water are withdrawn for the production of feed.
Resources: Factory farming wastes resources. The US spends more than 70% of the grains and cereals it grows and about 50% of its water resources to raise animals for food. Approximately, 80% of the agricultural land in the United States is used for animal farming.
I believe that in a world where 923 million are hungry this is incomprehensible.
SOURCES:
http://www.celsias.com/article/what-the-meat-industry-doesnt-want-you-to-see/
http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/index.html
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Midterm Report-part B
| |
Sources:
http://www.carbonfootprint.com/recycling.html
http://www.recycling-revolution.com/recycling-benefits.html
Midterm Report-part A
A carbon footprint is a measure of the impact our lifestyle has on the environment. It relates to the amount of greenhouse gases produced in our daily activities through burning fossil fuels for electricity, heating, and transportation etc. and has units of tones of carbon dioxide equivalent.
A carbon footprint consists of two parts: the primary footprint and the secondary footprint. The primary footprint is the assessment of an individual’s direct CO2 emissions by the burning of fossil fuels for domestic energy or transportation. Additionally, people are in complete control of these factors. The secondary footprint measures the indirect CO2 emissions of a person’s material possessions, starting from their manufacture to their breakdown.
I used the carbon footprint calculators in www.climatecrisis.net (18.1 tones per year) and www.nature.org (29 tones per year). Considering that the former tool does did not inquire about my recycling habits, I adopted a another tool from www.carbonfootprint.com/calculator.aspx
About www.climatecrisis.net
This website inquired about the following:
1. State of residence
2. Number of people in household
3. Car (year, make, model)
4. Mileage per year
5. Plane flights per year
6. Average monthly electric bill
7. Percentage of electricity that comes from clean source (solar or wind power)
8. Average monthly natural gas bill
9. Average monthly heating oil bill
10. Average monthly propane bill
This site explained their method for calculating the carbon footprint. Basically, the carbon dioxide footprint is the total of the estimates above, resulting in an approximation of the carbon dioxide that is produced by the combination of transportation and home energy. Then this finding is compared against an estimated monthly per capita U.S. average (roughly 32% of per capita emissions) of 1,250 pounds.
About www.nature.org
This calculator is more specific than the previous tool. Not only does it ask rudimentary questions like state of residence and number of people per household, it also inquires about:
- Home Energy Category: [measures I have taken to change my impact] heating and cooling efficiency, lighting efficiency, use of ENERGY STAR appliances and unplugging electronics not in use, efficiency of heating water. These questions are answered with an “often, sometimes, rarely” fashion.
- It also inquires about the following habits: Driving and Flying; Recycling and Waste; Food and Diet.
This tool calculated my carbon footprint as 29 tones per year. In order to understand how recycling affected my reading, I recalculated my footprint on the premise that I never recycle my new estimate. The new estimate increased to 30 tones of CO2 a year, not a significant increase. The majority of my emissions come from my extensive flights.
To calculate emission values per person, this site used 2004 statistics that said that the U.S. emitted 7074 million metric tones of carbon dioxide, averaging to about 27 tones per person. In this calculation, direct emission (home energy, personal transportation, diet, waste,) make up 45% of the 7074 total. “For the specific behaviors evaluated in the calculator, we rely on data regarding typical consumption to determine an average contribution. In most cases, we also calculate high and low endpoints for each behavior. These three points are used to frame the specific responses for each behavior.” To determine the indirect emissions for each user, we apply an indirect emissions factor to all personal behaviors. This is simply the ratio of total U.S. CO2 emissions to the total emissions for the personal behaviors we are considering. For example, direct emissions from one long flight is approximately 1 ton and indirect emissions add 1.2 tons, for total emissions of 2.2 tons.”
In the case of recycling, the site explains that in 2004, and average of 246 million tones of short waste were landfilled in 2004. This equates to 2.1 tones of CO2 equivalent greenhouse gases per capita. Using this information, the site can calculate how this emission factor can be reduced if a person recycles (by 42%) and composts (by 24%) his household trash his emissions.
According to this tool, recycling and composting are indirect behaviors that have a minor effect one’s carbon emissions.
About www.carbonfootprint.com
This tool is perhaps the comprehensive of the three because its questions are divided into 6 categories: House, Flights, Car, Motorbike, Bus and Rail, and Secondary. New assessment categories the other tools lacked are motorcycle, public transportation, options about one’s fashion and electronic purchases, and the packaging on purchased items. My carbon footprint is 20.286 if “most of my waste is recycled” and 24.169 tones per year if “I don’t recycle at all.” Interestingly, recycling can significantly affect the outcome or your calculation. If I didn’t recycle then the majority of my emissions, 9.609 tones/year would stem from secondary activities. But because I do recycle, my secondary activities only account for an average of 5.726 tones/year. The Secondary activities which I am referring to are:
-Food Preferences
-Organic Produce
-In Season Foods
-Imported Foods or Goods
-Fashion
-Packaging
-Furniture and Electricals
-Recycling
-Recreation
I decided to also calculate my carbon footprint as a college student who uses the Metro to move around the city, lives in a dormitory, and for the most part, can control the air conditioning and heating in the room. In this reading I’m emitting 12.312 tones per year. I believe this reading to be fairly accurate because without my family’s ridiculously high monthly electricity expenditure and my driving habits it is natural for my emissions to drop significantly.
Sources:
http://www.climatecrisis.net/takeaction/carboncalculator/#
http://www.nature.org/initiatives/climatechange/calculator/
http://www.carbonfootprint.com/calculator.aspx
Thursday, October 9, 2008
The Truth About My Carbon Footprint
To measure my (ex)carbon footprint I used the websites: www.climatecrisis.net & www.nature.org. To my astonishment, both calculators estimated my footprint to be more than double of that of the average American (18.1 and 29 respectively). I, the vegetarian who renounced meat becauase its industry is detrimental to the environment, almost fell out of my chair. Embarrassed, I went to evaluate the factors that contributed to these calculations. First of all, neither of the sites listed Puerto Rico as place of residence. This is an extremely important factor because electrical engergy is relatively expensive when compared to other states. So when I insterted my yearly engergy bill (which is quite high because my parents are not environmentally conscienscouis) I knew its reading was slightly erroneous.
General facts that my readings depended on:
-I recyle everything recyclable
-I drive a small car
-No need for heating oil
-I travel twice a year to Europe and a few times a year to contiguous USA.
-I live in a house (w/ a pool)
-We are a family of 4
-I don't eat meat
My readings were high for two main reasons:
1. My electric bill does not provide an accurate account of the amount of engery consumed because PR was not listed as a state or country. (Clearly this is a factor I cannot control)
2. I travel...a lot. (Factor within my power, but hard to overcome.)
Climatecrisis.net inquired about: state of residence, number of people per household; car and milage; air travel; monthly electric, natural gas, heating oil, and propane bills. Nature.org asked the above except the monthly electric bill and did inquire about my diet and recycling habits.
Although there is a differnce of 19 tons per year in my readings and currently I lack an accurate estimation of my carbon emissions, I can easily guess that my emissions levels are high.
General facts that my readings depended on:
-I recyle everything recyclable
-I drive a small car
-No need for heating oil
-I travel twice a year to Europe and a few times a year to contiguous USA.
-I live in a house (w/ a pool)
-We are a family of 4
-I don't eat meat
My readings were high for two main reasons:
1. My electric bill does not provide an accurate account of the amount of engery consumed because PR was not listed as a state or country. (Clearly this is a factor I cannot control)
2. I travel...a lot. (Factor within my power, but hard to overcome.)
Climatecrisis.net inquired about: state of residence, number of people per household; car and milage; air travel; monthly electric, natural gas, heating oil, and propane bills. Nature.org asked the above except the monthly electric bill and did inquire about my diet and recycling habits.
Although there is a differnce of 19 tons per year in my readings and currently I lack an accurate estimation of my carbon emissions, I can easily guess that my emissions levels are high.
Friday, October 3, 2008
PLENARY: An Inconvenient Truth
This was my second viewing of Al Gore's documentary. The second time around was more enjoyable for two main reasons:
1. Paradoxically, three years ago, when I first saw the movie, I was aware of global warming yet utterly ignorant of it. The movie taught me a lot yet because I lacked a great deal of background on the subject, it touched my heart AND got my kind of panicky the "warming". I've learned so much these last three years (mostly through other documentaries and internet research) that I was able to make much more sense of the information being presented because I'm more conscious of the situation.
2. I "relearned" a great deal of things about population and ecological aspects that are easy to forget when only speaking of climate. It reminded of how far the US needs to go and how much we are going to have to work together.
1. Paradoxically, three years ago, when I first saw the movie, I was aware of global warming yet utterly ignorant of it. The movie taught me a lot yet because I lacked a great deal of background on the subject, it touched my heart AND got my kind of panicky the "warming". I've learned so much these last three years (mostly through other documentaries and internet research) that I was able to make much more sense of the information being presented because I'm more conscious of the situation.
2. I "relearned" a great deal of things about population and ecological aspects that are easy to forget when only speaking of climate. It reminded of how far the US needs to go and how much we are going to have to work together.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Recycling Research
About five years ago, in a geology science course, I came to understand the terminable nature fossil fuels. This awakening contributed to the rise of my environmental consciousness but also set forth a rush of questions about ways humanity can improve. The topic of recycling encompassed a great variety of inquietudes. "How is trash made into something useful? What can be recycled? Why isn't everybody doing this? What type of energy do recycling plants use, and if it's fossil fuels, then is it really as beneficial as proposed?" It's quite embarrassing to admit that all these years questions like these have bugged me but somehow not enough for me to go out of my way and find answers. Yet, in the light of this course, I have decided to break this vicious cycle of inaction. Here is what I found...
--- --- ---
The technical definition of recycling is when consumer goods are collected, converted back into raw materials, and remade into new consumer products. There are 4 major incentives to recycle:
1. Reduce the amount of garbage that ends up in landfills. (The more garbage, greater is the effect of underground pollution.)
2. Recycling will reduce the amount of natural resources needed to manufacture goods. In other words, less fossil fuels for plastic and less paper for trees.
3. Many times recycling uses less energy. This definitely true for steel but not so much for plastic (which is relatively inexpensive to manufacture)
4. "For cities in densely populated areas that have to pay by the ton for their landfill usage, recycling can shave millions of dollars off municipal budgets...Economic analysis shows that recycling can generate three times as much revenue per ton as landfill disposal and almost six times as many jobs."
The most common type of recycling is known as down-recycling which means that a recycled product is of less quality (or cheaper or weaker) than original product. Eventually, products become unfeasible candidates for "re"-recycling and are regarded as garbage.
Interesting facts about recycling:
* The EPA estimates that 75 percent of what Americans throw in the trash could actually be recycled
* Incinerating 10,000 tons of waste creates one job; landfilling 10,000 tons of waste creates six jobs; recycling 10,000 tons of waste creates 36 jobs
** The national recycling rate of 30 percent saves the equivalent of more than five billion gallons of gasoline, reducing dependence on foreign oil by 114 million barrels
* According to the EPA, recycling (including composting) diverted 68 million tons of material away from landfills and incinerators in 2001, up from 34 million tons in 1990
* Recycling aluminum cans at the curb not only covers the cost of collecting and re-processing aluminum, but helps subsidize the collection of other recyclables.
SOURCES:
1. http://science.howstuffworks.com/recycling.htm
2. http://earth911.org/recycling/curbside-recycling/curbside-recycling-fun-facts/
--- --- ---
The technical definition of recycling is when consumer goods are collected, converted back into raw materials, and remade into new consumer products. There are 4 major incentives to recycle:
1. Reduce the amount of garbage that ends up in landfills. (The more garbage, greater is the effect of underground pollution.)
2. Recycling will reduce the amount of natural resources needed to manufacture goods. In other words, less fossil fuels for plastic and less paper for trees.
3. Many times recycling uses less energy. This definitely true for steel but not so much for plastic (which is relatively inexpensive to manufacture)
4. "For cities in densely populated areas that have to pay by the ton for their landfill usage, recycling can shave millions of dollars off municipal budgets...Economic analysis shows that recycling can generate three times as much revenue per ton as landfill disposal and almost six times as many jobs."
The most common type of recycling is known as down-recycling which means that a recycled product is of less quality (or cheaper or weaker) than original product. Eventually, products become unfeasible candidates for "re"-recycling and are regarded as garbage.
Interesting facts about recycling:
* The EPA estimates that 75 percent of what Americans throw in the trash could actually be recycled
* Incinerating 10,000 tons of waste creates one job; landfilling 10,000 tons of waste creates six jobs; recycling 10,000 tons of waste creates 36 jobs
** The national recycling rate of 30 percent saves the equivalent of more than five billion gallons of gasoline, reducing dependence on foreign oil by 114 million barrels
* According to the EPA, recycling (including composting) diverted 68 million tons of material away from landfills and incinerators in 2001, up from 34 million tons in 1990
* Recycling aluminum cans at the curb not only covers the cost of collecting and re-processing aluminum, but helps subsidize the collection of other recyclables.
SOURCES:
1. http://science.howstuffworks.com/recycling.htm
2. http://earth911.org/recycling/curbside-recycling/curbside-recycling-fun-facts/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)