In a world where energy is a supply that is always in demand, a cheap, clean energy source is hard to come by. Luckily, in recent years solar energy technology has improved greatly, and due to the recent sky-rocking price in oil and coal, solar energy has come back into the spotlight. The new design for these “solar energy catching” devices is called the parabolic solar trough. It focuses all the sunlight into a liquid-filled tube at the bottom of the parabola and all the sunlight is focused on it creating a blistering 750 degree F liquid. This liquid is then used to heat water and cause it to turn into steam, which is used in a steam turbine, just like coal and oil plants. The second design isn’t so new, but has been “reborn” with new materials, lowering the price and making mass production possible. The solar energy companies are using the solar panel design with new semiconductors to catch the electricity caused by the positive charge. This new panel has been used in a new dish design which also focuses the sunlight into one spot, but this time to a temperature of 1450 degrees F. This design also comes with its own Stirling engine which is independent from all the other dishes, so if one fails; it doesn’t cause production to halt to repair the broken dish.
In such an unstable market, and with such an uncertain future in oil, solar energy seems the way to go. It will not only help keep America green, it will also create jobs for Thousands of Americans, and possibly open up a new market for our economy. In deserts where nothing could be done in the first place, solar dishes or troughs could be placed to gather the blistering desert sun and giving us access to a supply in high demand, clean energy. Also, once the dishes or troughs are built, they are virtually cost free (minus a repair or two over long periods of time). So, as an alternative to buying oil and coal all the time, why not go for a slightly larger one-time payment for solar panels and troughs and never have to pay again? Pure profit could come from these dishes, allowing American energy companies to stay competitive with foreign energy companies with less regulation, lower pay for workers, and in some cases, no labor laws. “Power plants are a major source of air pollution, with coal-fired power plants spewing 59% of total U.S. sulfur dioxide pollution and 18% of total nitrogen oxides every year” (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "National Air Quality and Emissions Trends Report." 2003. Appendix A.) With solar power, there are no emissions making for a greener, healthier America.
Showing posts with label environmental_issue. Show all posts
Showing posts with label environmental_issue. Show all posts
6/6/09
speaking_ water polution
Water. We won’t live without it. Water is life and pollution is putting that at risk.
Water pollution is a enormous issue globally and is thought to be the leading cause of deaths and disease daily.
I always was under the impression that there are only one type of pollution, but the fact is there is three types of water pollution.
Point source pollution - containments enter a waterway through a discrete transportation such as a pipe or ditch (includes sewage treatment plants, factories or a city storm drain).
Non-Point source pollution - diffuse contamination that doesn’t come from a single source. NPS pollution is a small collective of infectivity from a large area.
Examples of this type of NPS is nutrient runoff in storm water from “sheet flow” over agricultural or a forest. Contaminated storm water washed of parking lots, roads and highways (urban runoff) is also falls under this category.
Groundwater- a spill of chemical contaminate on soil, located from water bodies that may contaminate the aquifers below.
An aquifer is an underground layer of water-bearing permeable rock or unconcluded materials (sand, gravel, silt or clay) from which ground water can be removed by a water well.
To keep the point source pollution under regulation the Clean Water Act established in 1972. The law mandates the Untied States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to publish and enforce waste water standards.
Water pollution is a enormous issue globally and is thought to be the leading cause of deaths and disease daily.
I always was under the impression that there are only one type of pollution, but the fact is there is three types of water pollution.
Point source pollution - containments enter a waterway through a discrete transportation such as a pipe or ditch (includes sewage treatment plants, factories or a city storm drain).
Non-Point source pollution - diffuse contamination that doesn’t come from a single source. NPS pollution is a small collective of infectivity from a large area.
Examples of this type of NPS is nutrient runoff in storm water from “sheet flow” over agricultural or a forest. Contaminated storm water washed of parking lots, roads and highways (urban runoff) is also falls under this category.
Groundwater- a spill of chemical contaminate on soil, located from water bodies that may contaminate the aquifers below.
An aquifer is an underground layer of water-bearing permeable rock or unconcluded materials (sand, gravel, silt or clay) from which ground water can be removed by a water well.
To keep the point source pollution under regulation the Clean Water Act established in 1972. The law mandates the Untied States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to publish and enforce waste water standards.
6/1/09
Energy of the future
Some countries use fossil fuels such as coal, gas, ... Other countries encourage the use of alternative sourses of energy such as wind and solar power.
What might be positive and negative development of each?
================================================================
Current energy sources will not be able to sustain our growing society. We must look to alternate energy sources for the answer.
For further readings on alternative energy (hydro, solar, wind, biomass, nuclear) pls read this (20 pages)
https://www.wellsfargo.com/downloads/pdf/about/csr/alt_energy.pdf
================
Alternate energy sources must replace our traditional energy sources because they are sustainable for our lifestyles. Since the age of industrialization, we have relied heavily upon traditional energy resources (mostly the burning of fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and natural gas). These traditional resources have shaped our culture as well as our development. However, when these resources are used to produce energy, they negatively impact our delicate environment. They are also nonrenewable and will one day run out. However, we may solve the problem of our depleting resources through current technology, which promise new alternative methods to produce energy. Using these alternative resources will greatly increase our sustainability.
Alternative sources must replace traditional sources because they are renewable (the resource will never deplete). One example of an alternate resource is hydroelectricity which generates power via moving water. Due to the hydrologic cycle, the fast-moving water will never deplete. Hydroelectricity is therefore a renewable energy resource. Another example of renewable energy is solar power, which generates energy by collecting heat or light from the sun. Since the sun will not stop emitting heat and light (at least not for the next 4,000,000,000 years) it is considered a renewable resource. Wind can also be used to generate large amounts of electricity. As long as the sun’s heat creates wind currents, we will be able to produce power from the wind. Coal will be gone in 200 years, whereas natural gas will have disappeared in less than 100 years. However, these three resources mentioned above, hydro, solar, and wind power, cannot be depleted.
Another advantage alternative power sources have over traditional sources is that they have little to no impact on the environment. Hydroelectricity relies solely on fast-flowing water to generate power. Once a hydroelectric dam is operating it does not emit any pollutants into the atmosphere. Geothermal energy is considered to be the cleanest energy resource yet explored. A geothermal plant does not burn any fossil fuels and requires minimal land space to operate. Its environmental impact is nearly zero. Hydrogen energy promises to be an excellent substitute to gasoline products currently used in cars and trucks. The element hydrogen is much more powerful per liter than gasoline. Unlike gasoline, the exhaust products of hydrogen do not pollute the atmosphere with CO2 or CO1 (carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide respectively) but release clean H2O (water). Since alternative energy sources have minimal effects on the environment, the must be used as substitutes for traditional energy sources which are currently trashing our earth.
The only disadvantages of alternative energy are that they are often unreliable and have high start-up costs. For example, solar energy requires a great number of solar cells to produce any significant amount of electricity. The cells are expensive and may not be affordable for family households or small companies. They also only produce electricity on sunny days. Because the sun is not always shining, the source is not reliable. Another example of an energy resource that is expensive to start up is hydroelectric dams. Though running costs are cheap the building of a hydroelectric dam far exceeds that of a fossil-fuel-burning plant. Many governments and companies may stay away from alternative energy sources such as these because the resource is unreliable or they cannot afford the initial start-up costs.
Alternative energy has more benefits than drawbacks. Unlike traditional resources, it is renewable and has little to no impact on the environment. The only drawbacks to these sources are that they are often unreliable and command high startup costs. Our current technologies employed to produce energy are not sustainable. The resources will not last for future generations. We therefore need to move to alternate energy resources to ensure that our lifestyles are sustainable, both for us and for future generations.
What might be positive and negative development of each?
================================================================
Current energy sources will not be able to sustain our growing society. We must look to alternate energy sources for the answer.
For further readings on alternative energy (hydro, solar, wind, biomass, nuclear) pls read this (20 pages)
https://www.wellsfargo.com/downloads/pdf/about/csr/alt_energy.pdf
================
Alternate energy sources must replace our traditional energy sources because they are sustainable for our lifestyles. Since the age of industrialization, we have relied heavily upon traditional energy resources (mostly the burning of fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and natural gas). These traditional resources have shaped our culture as well as our development. However, when these resources are used to produce energy, they negatively impact our delicate environment. They are also nonrenewable and will one day run out. However, we may solve the problem of our depleting resources through current technology, which promise new alternative methods to produce energy. Using these alternative resources will greatly increase our sustainability.
Alternative sources must replace traditional sources because they are renewable (the resource will never deplete). One example of an alternate resource is hydroelectricity which generates power via moving water. Due to the hydrologic cycle, the fast-moving water will never deplete. Hydroelectricity is therefore a renewable energy resource. Another example of renewable energy is solar power, which generates energy by collecting heat or light from the sun. Since the sun will not stop emitting heat and light (at least not for the next 4,000,000,000 years) it is considered a renewable resource. Wind can also be used to generate large amounts of electricity. As long as the sun’s heat creates wind currents, we will be able to produce power from the wind. Coal will be gone in 200 years, whereas natural gas will have disappeared in less than 100 years. However, these three resources mentioned above, hydro, solar, and wind power, cannot be depleted.
Another advantage alternative power sources have over traditional sources is that they have little to no impact on the environment. Hydroelectricity relies solely on fast-flowing water to generate power. Once a hydroelectric dam is operating it does not emit any pollutants into the atmosphere. Geothermal energy is considered to be the cleanest energy resource yet explored. A geothermal plant does not burn any fossil fuels and requires minimal land space to operate. Its environmental impact is nearly zero. Hydrogen energy promises to be an excellent substitute to gasoline products currently used in cars and trucks. The element hydrogen is much more powerful per liter than gasoline. Unlike gasoline, the exhaust products of hydrogen do not pollute the atmosphere with CO2 or CO1 (carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide respectively) but release clean H2O (water). Since alternative energy sources have minimal effects on the environment, the must be used as substitutes for traditional energy sources which are currently trashing our earth.
The only disadvantages of alternative energy are that they are often unreliable and have high start-up costs. For example, solar energy requires a great number of solar cells to produce any significant amount of electricity. The cells are expensive and may not be affordable for family households or small companies. They also only produce electricity on sunny days. Because the sun is not always shining, the source is not reliable. Another example of an energy resource that is expensive to start up is hydroelectric dams. Though running costs are cheap the building of a hydroelectric dam far exceeds that of a fossil-fuel-burning plant. Many governments and companies may stay away from alternative energy sources such as these because the resource is unreliable or they cannot afford the initial start-up costs.
Alternative energy has more benefits than drawbacks. Unlike traditional resources, it is renewable and has little to no impact on the environment. The only drawbacks to these sources are that they are often unreliable and command high startup costs. Our current technologies employed to produce energy are not sustainable. The resources will not last for future generations. We therefore need to move to alternate energy resources to ensure that our lifestyles are sustainable, both for us and for future generations.
5/15/09
Ice sheet melt threat reassessed
By Mark Kinver
Science and environment reporter, BBC News
The collapse of a major polar ice sheet will not raise global sea levels as much as previous projections suggest, a team of scientists has calculated.
Writing in Science, the researchers said that the demise of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) would result in a sea level rise of 3.3m (10 ft).
Previous estimates had forecast a rise in the region of five to six metres.
However, they added, the rise would still pose a serious threat to major coastal cities, such as New York.
"Sea level rise is considered to be the one of the most serious consequence of climate change," lead author Jonathan Bamber told the Science podcast.
"A sea level rise of just 1.5m would displace 17 million people in Bangladesh alone," he added.
"So it is of the utmost importance to understand the potential threats to coastlines and people living in coastal areas."
Threat reassessed
Professor Bamber, from the University of Bristol's Glaciology Centre, said that the WAIS posed "potentially one of the most serious threats".
The world has three ice sheets, Greenland, East Antarctica and West Antarctica, but it is the latter that is considered most vulnerable to climatic shifts.
"It has been hypothesised for more than 30 years now that the WAIS is inherently unstable," he explained.
"This instability means that the ice sheet could potentially rapidly collapse or rapidly put a lot of ice into the oceans."
When the idea first emerged in the late 1970s, it was estimated that global sea level would rise by five metres if the WAIS collapsed.
Current projections suggest that a complete collapse of WAIS would result in an increase of up to six metres.
But Professor Bamber said that no-one had revisited the calculation, despite new data sets becoming available, and scientists developing a better understanding of the dynamics in the vast ice sheets.
The original estimates were based on "very basic ice thickness data", he explained.
"Ice thickness data gives you information about the depth of the bedrock underneath the ice sheet.
"Over the past 30 years, we have acquired much more ice thickness data over the whole of Antarctica, particularly over West Antarctica.
"We also have much better surface topography. Those two data sets are critical in determining two things."
The first was knowing the volume of ice that could contribute to sea level rise, and the second was a better understanding of the proportion of WAIS that was potentially susceptible to this instability.
Instead of assuming that the entire WAIS would collapse, causing sea level to rise by up to six metres, Professor Bamber and colleagues used models based on glaciological theory to simulate how the 2.2 million-cubic-km ice sheet would respond.
"Our reassessment of West Antarctica's contribution to sea level rise if the ice sheet was to collapse is about 3.3 metres," he said.
"That is about half of the value that has been quoted up until now."
The team's study also calculated what regions were likely to experience the biggest increases in sea level.
"Sea level rise is not uniform across the world's oceans, partly as a result of disruptions to the Earth's gravity field," explained Professor Bamber.
"It turns out that the maximum increase in sea level rise is centred at a latitude of about 40 degrees along the Atlantic and Pacific seaboards of North America."
This would include cities such as San Francisco and New York.
These areas could expect increases of one-and-a-quarter times the global average, the team estimated.
In other words, if the global average was one metre, then places like New York could expect to see a rise of 1.25m.
Responding to Professor Bamber's paper in Science, British Antarctic Survey science leader Dr David Vaughan described the findings as "quite sound".
"But for me, the most crucial question is not solely about the total amount of ice in West Antarctica, because that might take several centuries to be lost to the ocean," he told BBC News.
"The crucial question is how much ice could be lost in 100-200 years; that's the sea level rise we have to understand and plan for.
"Even with this new assessment the loss of a fraction of WAIS over those timescales would have serious consequences and costs that we've only really just begun to understand."
Science and environment reporter, BBC News
The collapse of a major polar ice sheet will not raise global sea levels as much as previous projections suggest, a team of scientists has calculated.
Writing in Science, the researchers said that the demise of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) would result in a sea level rise of 3.3m (10 ft).
Previous estimates had forecast a rise in the region of five to six metres.
However, they added, the rise would still pose a serious threat to major coastal cities, such as New York.
"Sea level rise is considered to be the one of the most serious consequence of climate change," lead author Jonathan Bamber told the Science podcast.
"A sea level rise of just 1.5m would displace 17 million people in Bangladesh alone," he added.
"So it is of the utmost importance to understand the potential threats to coastlines and people living in coastal areas."
Threat reassessed
Professor Bamber, from the University of Bristol's Glaciology Centre, said that the WAIS posed "potentially one of the most serious threats".
The world has three ice sheets, Greenland, East Antarctica and West Antarctica, but it is the latter that is considered most vulnerable to climatic shifts.
"It has been hypothesised for more than 30 years now that the WAIS is inherently unstable," he explained.
"This instability means that the ice sheet could potentially rapidly collapse or rapidly put a lot of ice into the oceans."
When the idea first emerged in the late 1970s, it was estimated that global sea level would rise by five metres if the WAIS collapsed.
Current projections suggest that a complete collapse of WAIS would result in an increase of up to six metres.
But Professor Bamber said that no-one had revisited the calculation, despite new data sets becoming available, and scientists developing a better understanding of the dynamics in the vast ice sheets.
The original estimates were based on "very basic ice thickness data", he explained.
"Ice thickness data gives you information about the depth of the bedrock underneath the ice sheet.
"Over the past 30 years, we have acquired much more ice thickness data over the whole of Antarctica, particularly over West Antarctica.
"We also have much better surface topography. Those two data sets are critical in determining two things."
The first was knowing the volume of ice that could contribute to sea level rise, and the second was a better understanding of the proportion of WAIS that was potentially susceptible to this instability.
Instead of assuming that the entire WAIS would collapse, causing sea level to rise by up to six metres, Professor Bamber and colleagues used models based on glaciological theory to simulate how the 2.2 million-cubic-km ice sheet would respond.
"Our reassessment of West Antarctica's contribution to sea level rise if the ice sheet was to collapse is about 3.3 metres," he said.
"That is about half of the value that has been quoted up until now."
The team's study also calculated what regions were likely to experience the biggest increases in sea level.
"Sea level rise is not uniform across the world's oceans, partly as a result of disruptions to the Earth's gravity field," explained Professor Bamber.
"It turns out that the maximum increase in sea level rise is centred at a latitude of about 40 degrees along the Atlantic and Pacific seaboards of North America."
This would include cities such as San Francisco and New York.
These areas could expect increases of one-and-a-quarter times the global average, the team estimated.
In other words, if the global average was one metre, then places like New York could expect to see a rise of 1.25m.
Responding to Professor Bamber's paper in Science, British Antarctic Survey science leader Dr David Vaughan described the findings as "quite sound".
"But for me, the most crucial question is not solely about the total amount of ice in West Antarctica, because that might take several centuries to be lost to the ocean," he told BBC News.
"The crucial question is how much ice could be lost in 100-200 years; that's the sea level rise we have to understand and plan for.
"Even with this new assessment the loss of a fraction of WAIS over those timescales would have serious consequences and costs that we've only really just begun to understand."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)