Blog #1 - Comment on Power Point Presentations

Dear Professor,

As an overall general comment, I found this exercise very helpful. Not only a successful group work product emerge, but by presenting the same article, a good comparison parameter was established. 

Individual comments:

Group 1: had a successful presentation. He was able to engage the public right from the start by implementing humor. Also his speech was clear and simple. This is a very important  instrument for getting the public to retain the presented information. Also, the structure of the presentation was concise while still emphasizing the main points. As a result he conveyed the main polemic of the article well.

Group 2: had good presentation. However, the group's disagreement over the structure and opinions was visible in the weak structure of the powerpoint presentation. Yet the group's biggest problem simultaneously turned out to be its strength for each individual had the opportunity to present their own personal take on the issue at hand. 

Group 3:  focused solely on engaging the public with humor. While amusing and the presentation was too short and was ultimately unable to present the complexity of article. After the presentation was over, by ignoring all previous presentations, one was unable to know what polemic the article discussed.

Group 4: had a structured powerpoint presentation in which the public acquired a knowledge about he subject being presented. The speaker was concise and clear. However, it did lack enthusiasm. This can be attributed to the fact that it was trying to avoid being too repetitive. 

Group 5: presentation was not witnessed. 

Group 6: presented well by talking freely and portraying good examples. Yet did not really engage the  audience successfully. Nonetheless, the group did stay close to the article and conveyed the main point precisely. talked free and portrayed, good examples. 

A further critique to all is that no presenter introduced the article's title, the author, and its source. When presenting someone else's work it is important to get that across to the audience. Yet overall, all presenters did very well!

Evaluation # 8

Hello Professor,

This blog will focus on the second part of the Climate lab. The reason being, is that in the lab, the concept was still a little fuzzy and by studying and depicting it here, I am hoping to fully understand the two dimensional climate model explained in Richars Wolfson's "Energy, Environment, and climate". 

The purpose of the two dimensional climate model is to illustrate in a simplified way how the earth's energy balance works and how the energy exchange between the surface and the atmosphere functions. As we know from previous chapters, the energy balance of the earth entails that the same amount of energy enters from the sun as it is reflected back to space. 

Due to the emissivity(the effectiveness of molecules in absorbing and radiating energy) of the molecules in the atmosphere, the manner in which the energy leaves the earth is not as uniform as when it enters. Almost 100% of the earth's energy is derived from the sun. Even though, the earth receives 235 W/m^2 of solar energy, not all of it reaches the surface. A large amount of the solar energy is directly reflected back to space by the greenhouse gases. This is attributed to their high emissivity rate, which is not constant and depends on the atmosphere's temperature and molecular concentration of greenhouse gases. 

The remainder of the solar energy that is not directly radiated back to space, reaches the earth's surface. Although the radiation of the surface depends on the surface's temperature, in total its emissivity is close to one. This means that the earth's surface absorbs and emits energy very well.  As a result, the energy that reaches the earth is reflected back to space. This is how the earth's energy balance occurs.

However, before earth's surface energy is reflected back to space, it is absorbed by the atmospheric gases of the lower atmosphere due to the difference in temperature between the earth's surface and the atmosphere. This difference in temperature, absorption of energy, and retention of energy is what we refer too as the greenhouse effect. One can go as far as to deduce that life is possible on earth due to the presence of greenhouse gases. Otherwise the earth's average temperature would be 254 Kelvin or -19. 15 Celsius, which would be way beyond water's freezing point. 

Blog Abstract

        Blog Abstract

Blog #1: September 10

“Green, Sustainability, and Systems Approach”

This blog defines, explains, and analyses each concept.

 

Blog #2: September 14

“Opinion of the Week”

This blog expresses its opinions about the presentation held that week. It also advises for a class blog in which every student can have access to the power point of the presentations held so a more profound understanding can be achieved.

 

Blog #3: September 21

“Opinion of the Week”

This blog admires the teaching methodology, which encompasses a balance of lecture with individual teaching trough research.

 

Blog #4: September 21

“Evaluation on the First Plenary and Lab”

This blog expresses a positive opinion of the first plenary session, which was about sustainability. The second part of the blog expresses contentment with the lab on solar constant because it propelled the internalization and understanding of that concept.

 

Blog #5: October 5

“Systems Approach and Kafka”

This blog appreciates the summary given in class of the terms “green”, “sustainability”, and “systems approach”.  It also makes the comparison of the concept of systems approach with Franz Kafka’s story of “The Castle”.

 

Blog #6: October 13

“Color”

This blog extends on lab conducted in class on color. It explains how color works and explains why we perceive the colors we do.

 

Blog #7: October 19
“Thermodynamics”

This blog explains and focuses on the three ways of heat transfer: convection, conduction, and radiation.

 

Blog #8: October 26

“Beyond Oil”

This blog focuses on the explanation of Hubbert’s Peak and well as the concepts of “Hubbertians” and “Cornucopians” raised in the book “Beyond Oil” by Deffeyes.

 

Blog #10: MIDTERM

Blog #11: November 9

“Coal War”

This blog is about the article on the Scientif American magazine called “Coal War: Georgia Halts Construction of New Coal- Fired Plant”. It resumes it while giving an analysis of its significance on environmental field. 

Class Assignment from November 14

Emissivity:

As we know, heat can be transferred through convection, conduction, and radiation. As long as objects have a higher temperature than absolute zero (-273 Celsius), its molecules vibrate as a result they are constantly absorbing and emitting electro-magnetic radiation. For example, if an object is hotter than its surroundings, it will emit energy and if is colder, it will absorb energy from its surroundings. As a result, the net flow of electro-magnetic energy between two objects depends on the temperature difference between the two.

 

So what is emissivity?

Emissivity is the property that each object has to either emit or absorb electro-magnetic energy. The emissivity of an object depends two things: Its material and surface area.

 

The scale 0-1 describes the objects efficiency as an emitter and absorber.

è   A black object is a perfect emitter/absorber.

è   A shiny object is a poor emitter/absorber.

 

One must take into account that the objects efficiency rate as an emitter is equal to its efficiency as an absorber!

 

Since emissivity describes the electro-magnetic energy exchange between two objects, the emissivity for visible light (low wavelength) is different for that of infrared (high wavelength).

 

Question 3:

In what sense is radiation the only heat-transfer process affecting the planet’s energy-balance? In what sense do other processes play a role?

 

The earth receives all its energy from the sun through radiation and most of it is reflected back to space. The term energy balance refers to an equal amount entering and leaving a system. On earth, the energy balance is achieved through electro-magnetic radiation. Energy from the sun enters the earth in two forms, through light (short wave energy) and through infrared radiation (long wave energy). The short wave energy enters and leaves the earth without inhibition since none of the atmospheric gases absorb visible light. Yet molecules in the atmosphere such as carbon dioxide, nitrogen, water, and methane absorb the infrared radiation, or long wave energy. The short wave absorption by those gases is the key element in the establishment of the planet’s energy balance because some energy is then prevented from leaving the earth. As a result of the atmospheric gases the earth’s average temperature is raised from 254 Kelvin to 287 Kelvin. Our planet’s energy balance consists of an equal rate of short wave energy that enters and leaves the planet, yet the entrance and exit of long wave energy is not the same.

Other processes like clouds, oceans or geographical variations influence the planet’s energy balance. However, they are rather ignored in the big picture because their influence on the energy balance is minimal in comparison to the atmospheric gases. Yet the increase of fossil fuel consumption, which has significantly increased the presence of atmospheric gases, especially CO2, has contributed in altering the earth’s energy balance. The reason is that now more short wave energy is absorbed. As result, more energy from the sun is retained in the atmosphere than it naturally should!

Evaluation # 7

Good Evening Professor,

This week, my group had to work on the article "Coal War: Georgia Halts Construction of New Coal- Fired Plant". Our article was written on July 3, 2008 and depicted the first time that a court denied the continuation of the construction of a coal-fired plant in Chattahooche River in Georgia. The jurisdictional reason was that the permit for the plant neither contained a cap of CO2-emissions nor was seeking to implement any technologies to control them. The plant aimed to produce 1,200 mega-watts and as a result this plant would have emitted 8-9 million tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. In the United States the coal production is responsible for 40% of the C02- emissions. Additionally, coal fired plants have the highest output rate of Co2 per unit of electricity among all fossil fuels. Yet coal is also responsible for 50% of the U.S energy.  

This denial of the continuations of the construction of the coal-fired plant is quite significant in the political as well as in the environmental field since it is the first time that the Clean Air Act has been enforced by the Energy Protection Agency.  The Clean Air Act has been around since 1963. This legislation seeked to reduce smog and air pollution in the sixties. Realistically, the ratification of this act by congress was more or less a charity act for most people were not concerned with the environment back then. As the years passed, this act was modified and amended. The reduction of acid rain called upon and so was the concern of the ozone depletion. With time, this act became for specialized and dealt with pressing environmental issues, yet no organization or government body was assigned to enforce the act. This caused the act to be politically insignificant. Yet in May 2008 a Supreme Court Ruling gave the Energy Protection Agency the power to enforce the Clean Air Act that had been on the shelves for quite some time. This ruling changed the game since now they possess the political power to control, prohibit, and regulate issues associated with the environment. Finally, environmental protection can begin to happen since it can now be politically enforced!

Of course, the power company responsible for the power plant is appealing the the ruling of the Supreme Court of Georgia, arguing that when the permit was given, the EPA did not yet have the power to enforce the Clean Air Act. This is a valid point. The resolution of this political dispute remains to be seen. Yet we cannot deny that the denial was a stepping stone in environmental politics. 

Bibliography:

Scientific American: "Coal War: Georgia Court Halts Construction of New Coal-Fired Plant"

The Sierra Club Organization: "http://nevada.sierraclub.org/conservation/powerplants/EECcoalplant.html"

Energy Protection Agency, The Clean Air Act: "http://www.epa.gov/air/caa/"

MID TERM

Mid Term Carbon Footprint Project

By Andrea Devis

Part I: Carbon footprint calculation

What is carbon footprint?

Carbon footprint is the representation of the effect that human activities have on the climate in terms of the total amount of greenhouse gases emitted by each individual, household, or industry.

 What is the total of CO2 emitted in the United States?                                                                                                                  According to the Energy Information Association in 2005 28.192 million metric tons of Carbon Dioxide were emitted into the atmosphere worldwide. The United States is responsible for 21.1% of those emissions with a rate of 5.956 million metric tons. The United States emitted 13,131 pounds of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere in 2005. This means that the average of CO2 emissions is about 22,58 pounds per person of CO2 or 49,73 metric tons. That number was extracted by dividing the U.S population estimate from the U.S Census Bureau by the total of carbon dioxide emitted into the earth by the United States in 2005.

The Energy Protection Association estimates that energy production-related activities are the leading source greenhouse gas emissions. They accounted for 86% of the CO2 emissions to the atmosphere in 2006.

 

How was my households CO2 footprint calculated?                                                                                                                               Before I start, I want to give you an idea of my lifestyle. I live in a single, unattached family home in Maryland, which was constructed in the fifties. Four people reside permanently in the house. We own two vehicles, a mid-size car and an SUV. I commute to the university every day, my mother commutes to work, and my father travels back and forth from South America. My grandmother does not commute.

I used two different websites to calculate the carbon footprint of my household.

The first one was Nature Conservancy at www.nature.org and the second one was Carbon Counter at www.carboncaounter.org.

According to nature.org my household emits 100 tons of CO2 per year. This is supposedly lower than the United States average, which is 110 tons of CO2 per year.

                                               

                                                My Household (Tons/year)          U.S Average

Home Energy	51	30% above Average
Driving and Flying	36	22% below Average
Food and Diet	11	30% below Average.
Recycling and Waste	3.7	21% below Average

 

Nature.Org is an organization that is focused on the conservation of habitats as well as the clear reduction of individual CO2 emissions. As a result the entire calculator is based on reduction and addition of emissions through certain actions. Before every category is measured, the U.S average is given as a starting point. Then through three or four questions that are answered in an quantitative basis (very little, some, a lot) CO2 emissions are added or deducted. As a result one gets a very vague average. Additionally, one has very little control in making the calculations more precise or understanding how they are calculated for only the sources of the used data is given.

 

The second source used to measure my household’s carbon footprint was carboncounter.com. This source estimates that the average CO2 emission per person in the United States is 21.28 tons per year. By typing in my data it estimated that my carbon footprint is 40.20 tons per year. This showed that my carbon footprint doubles that of the United States average. The reason, for which it was so high was due to my frequent air travel.

 

                                                  My Household (Tons/year)     U.S Average(Tons/year)

Home CO2 Emissions	13.63	11.16
Auto CO2 Emissions	12.49	5.02
Air CO2 Emissions	14. 08	0.46

 

Carboncounter.org is an organization that tries to compensate for the individual carbon footprint by funding environmental projects that would neutralize the CO2 emissions. According to one’s footprint, it suggests the amount of money one should donate. This calculator is more precise than the first one. The reason being is that one could enter more accurate data such as the kwh used for electricity in the household, the miles traveled per car, and the miles traveled on airplane. Naturally the calculations also stem from the average of the U.S CO2 emissions. The data used in the calculation is from the same source as the first carbon footprint calculator used (EPA, US Department of Energy, and US Department of Transportation, among others). This website is also more transparent because it tells one directly how the calculations were conducted, while nature.org does not.

Sources of error:

What is the most puzzling, are the very different averages that are attained from the same sources. My calculations estimate the CO2 emission to be around 49,73 tons per person per year. Nature.org estimates the U.S average at 110 tons per year. And carboncounter.com estimates the average to be at 21,28 tons of CO2 per person per year.  A clear explanation could not be found. 

 

Part II: Aviation

According to the Energy Protection Agency 71.1 million tons of CO2 were emitted into the atmosphere through aviation transportation in 2006. That is 12% higher than in 1990.  The data given is very vague since the calculation of the aviation emissions depends on many variable factors. Depending on the stage of the flight, the plane will burn more or less fuel. Depending on the charcteristic of the engine, more or less fuel will be burned. Lastly the fuel burned and the quantity of CO2 emitted also depends on the flight conditions. If the plane is overloaded it will burn more fuel than if it is not. 

Yet by researching through governmental agencies our group will try to derive realistic averages of U.S aviation emissions. Then we will see what percentage the aviations emissions are from the total emission of the United States. Consequently we will try to find out where most of the emissions emerge from (either engine type, flight condition, or flight phase). With this we hope to acquire an overview and can propose a realistic starting point for emissions reduction. In proposing our solution, we will also take into account that the aviation industry is a high investment industry, which prevents the industry’s aging infrastructure to be replaced within a short time period.

 

 

Bibliography:

http://www.esd.rgs.org/glossarypopup.html

Energy Agency Information, Carbon Dioxide Emissions in 2005 http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/iea/carbon.html 

U.S Census Bureau, Population estimate: http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=01000US&-ds_name=PEP_2006_EST&-_lang=en&-mt_name=PEP_2006_EST_G2006_T001&-format=&-CONTEXT=dt

 

Web-Flyer, Calculation of Miles flown in 2008: http://www.webflyer.com/travel/milemarker/getmileage.php?city=DCA&city=MIA&city=&city=&city=&bonus=0&class_bonus=0&promo_bonus=0&min=0&min_type=m&bonus_use_min=0&class_bonus_use_min=0&promo_bonus_use_min=0

Evaluation # 6

Good evening Professor,

I would like to focus my blog on the book "Beyond Oil". I think it is a very good reading! It is the exact background information that the course needs to be able to carry out more profound discussions about alternative energy. 

I really appreciated how each fossil fuel was explained in a detailed manner, from the molecular structure to the different types of market prices and government policies. I really gained a scientific and factual overview, that I definitely lacked before. After going through Hubert's simplified calculations, the curve made a lot of sense. Yet, it remained unclear how Deffeyes concluded that we hit 94 percent of the oil that we can ever expect to hit. On the one hand he derives it from Huberts calculations yet on the other hand he mentions how difficult it is to find oil reserves through seismic exploration. Even though oil reserves have certain characteristics like anticlines, salt domes or faults, it is difficult to believe that all the ocean surface has been explored with either laser or sound-waves. Yet I do acknowledge his point that any new discoveries would not make a difference in the depleting fossil fuels due to the rising demand.

His central point is very relevant and one that we have discussed in class. Since he has a scientific perspective, he lacks the politician's cynicism. This makes it understandable why he loses a little bit touch with reality, as he proposes future solutions or alternative scenarios. But he is calling for political leadership and  its actions. Deffey mentions that we have missed the period in which alternative energy sources could have been experimented with and developed parallel so that the transition from fossil fuels to new energy sources would be a smooth one. He says that now we just have to cope with trial and error, which will take a harder tole on society. The "Hubertians" and "cornucopians" disagree on the time frame in which oil will deplete. However, both are aware that fossil fuel sources are not infinite. Hubbertians, according to Deffey's portrait, seem more precarious because they are calling for a blueprint of the world's resources so we can be honest with ourselves as a civilization and have a bigger control in which direction the wind of the future will take us. While the "cornucopians" are simply waiting for the invisible hand of the market and consequently for the extreme scarcity to drive prices up and prolong the supply. Naturally an alternative would emerge but be at a very high cost to our momentary living standards and economies. 

I fully support the method of prevention which the hubbertians are calling for!