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.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)