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!

Evaluation on Color (october 12)

(This is the evaluation, which I had technical difficulties with.)

Hello Professor,

Thank you for the meeting today. It was very enjoyable. I am sorry that it was cut short but I had class at 2:20 pm.

The internet is not allowing, the "New Post" window to be opened so I am sending you the fourth evaluation through this medium. Thank you for understanding.

I am writing the blog today because yesterday night, I got carried away by my research. One thing led me to another and then it was too late. Anyways, I hope it is still ok.

         I chose to investigate further on the concept of color, that was dealt with this week on the lab, for it is a subject that has always intrigued me. As I was doing my research, I was hoping to find answer what color really is. The best definition that I was found was on The Illusion Theory of Colors in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. "Colors conceptualized as objective, perceiver-independent, intrinsic feature of physical bodies are properties not found in nature. The colors in objects which we represented as them having, are ones that no object actually has." This definition basically states that colors are not the universal and objective elements that we are taught in elementary school, rather they are the synaptical interpretation of a phenomena physics. 

The physical phenomenon that constitutes color is really fascinating.  In ancient times it was believed taht the purest form of light was "white" light. Yet during the Enlightment period, Rene Descartes started notticing that the colors present in the rainbow where the same ones that were produced at the edge of a glass. Consequently, he concluded through mathematical analysis that those colors were produced by the refraction of light. Yet is was Isaac Newton who discovered that it was not the "white" light that produced the colors in the rainbow but rather that the colors were composing the "white and pure" light. Newton arrived at this conclusion by letting a ray, in a darkened room, go through a prism.  As a result red, orange,yellow, green, blue, and violet appeared on the screen. The reason for the colors being portrayed on the screen, was the way in which the prism caused the light to be refracted or "broken" into various different angles. To prove that "white" light really consisted out of those six colors, he introduced a second prism in his experiment, which was placed in front of the first one. As he predicted, the light visible on the screen was the "white" one.  The second prism re-refracted or "mended" the light that had been "broken" by the first prism. It cancelled the effect of the first one like a ordinary sheet of glass does. So, when we detect a red glass it due to the fact that only the lightwave that constitutes the color red is able to pass through. All the other components of light have then been absorbed by chemicals present in the glass. 

         Yet how are we able to see the redness of the glass? As the wavelenght of the color red passes through the glass, it activates one of the light sensitive cells present in our retina. It is believed that we have three different light sensitive cells: red, green, and blue. Other colors are not necessary for different combinations of those base colors can bring about all the colors of the light spectrum. This theory was established by Thomas Young and amplified by Herman Ludwig Ferdinand von Helmholtz. As a result this theory is known as the Young-Helmholtz- Theory of Color. So the color purple is the result of the blue and red light cells being activated. And white light is the result of blue, green, and red being activated equally. 

         Color is then a composition of our brains interpretation of  a physical phenomenon. Do you then see the same green, as I do?? 

 

 

 

Bibliography:

Understanding Physics by Isaac Asimov

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Spektrum Lehrbuch Biologie

Evaluation #5

Hello Professor,

Oh my! You gave me a good scare this afternoon. :)

Again I would like to focus my blog on the Lab. As we focused on thermodynamics I was able to realize how a simple solution such as insulation can have an immense effect on the reduction of CO2-emissions. 

Insulation is simply the barrier that prevents the three principle laws of heat transportation. As work is turned into heat, through the law of diffusion, it will disperse itself through the matter. This occurs as electrons get charged, vibrate, and pass off the energy to the next electron. As a result the energy contained in heat, will diffuse itself through the matter until all electrons are charged equally (or until the temperature has leveled itself through the matter). There are three different ways in which the heat energy can be transfered through matter: Conduction, convection, and radiation. 

Conduction occurs in solid matters, in which all molecules are in direct contact with each other. Yet just because a matter is solid, it does not necessarily mean that it will transfer heat or equalize the temperature throughout the matter. That depends on the properties of the material. For example Styrofoam will never conduct heat like copper does. The reason for this is the molecular structure and the position of the electrons in both materials. As the electrons of copper start vibrating and consequently distribute the heat throughout the object, the molecules of the styrofoam won't. The cause is that the phonons in the Styrofoam have such a low energy level, that the energy introduced through heat is not sufficient to get them to vibrate and distribute heat.  In copper the thermal conductance rate is very high and in styrofoam the thermal resistance is very high as well.

The second way in which heat energy is conducted through matter is convection. This type of heat transfer happens in fluids and as a cause of the law of diffusion. In liquids the particles in the matter are not bound as close together as the ones in the solid matter are. Yet heat is transmitted in the same principle. The energy added to some molecules will get them vibrating, as a result that vibration will exited the next molecule until all have the vibration in the particles, or simply the same temperature. The Brownian motion is a result of that.

The third and least common type of heat transfer is radiation. It occurs only in gaseous matter. Due to the fact that in gases, the direct connection of the electrons is missing, heat cannot be transfered like it is in conduction or convection. As a result, in radiation, the heat introduced into the electrons is converted into electromagnetic heat. Then heat is transmitted through frequencies, like infrared. 

The reason for which insulation is so fascinating, is because it prevents either conduction, convection, or radiation from taking place. That is why a vacuum is the best type of insulator. 

Yet, we are well aware that we could not build a vacuum around our house to prevent heat from leaving during the winter and from entering in the summer. As explained above, certain materials that are quite inexpensive can carry out the duty of insulation since their thermal resistance or R-value is high. Foam possesses such property. As a result, we should try to install as much as we can in our houses on the ceilings and walls so the most amount of heat possible will stay in the room and can be prevented from leaving. Consequently, less energy will be wasted in either the heating or air conditioning system and less emissions will be produced. 

Even though insulation foam, does not prevent conduction, convection or radiation like a vacuum does, it certainly lower the thermal conductivity rate. By installing more of it in our homes, we can certainly lower our carbon footprint!

Evaluation #3

Good Evening Professor,

This week has been the most constructive one so far. Even though, I have definitely enjoyed the last weeks of class, I had trouble finding the direction in which the course was suppose to take me, or where I was suppose to take the course. Although the course entails teaching methods that I find very productive, until now, I had not been able to attain an overview of it. 

You might be asking yourself, why this week seemed to tie everything together for me. There are two major reasons. The first one was how the lecture and the lab nicely complimented each other. The fact, that the lab only extended what had already been started by you, made the lab fit much better into the curriculum of the week.

The second reason why this week was very constructive was the methodology in which the class was taught. I really embraced the fact, that you were the one teaching the class. Because after having done the amount for this class independently, in my opinion it seemed that summary was needed. It was essential not only to estimate if the direction I was taking was the correct one but also for the class to attain an equal foundation of the new concepts. That is why I would find it very useful, if we could do, in the following weeks, what you did this week with the term of "Systems Approach". The lecture that you held in class, was very needed and therefore very appreciated. 

In addition the summary, reminded me of a book I read in the past by Franz Kafka called "The Castle". Too bad, that it did not come to me when the definitions were due. Being written by Kafka, the book is dark and pessimistic but it tells the story of how character K. arrives at a village that is solely dependent on the castle that is up the valley. Character K. was previously hired as a land surveyor but when he gets there his paperwork has been lost. Since people are only allowed in the village if the castle permits it, Character K. is given a temporary substitute job. As he attempts to sort things out, he realizes the complex bureaucratic system that has been created by the castle to control the village. No one seems to understand it. After months of trying, he finally receives a viewing with the king. Yet his exhaustion from his incapacity to understand the complex system prevents him from having a successful meeting and is therefore unable to get his initial position as a land surveyor. What happens to Character K. afterwards is left to our imagination for the novel ends abruptly since Kafka was not able to finish it.  

What made me think of that novel is the fact that the systems approach is just a method so that we can simplify and direct our complex and boundary-less reality.

Have a nice week.

Looking forward to our meeting,

Andrea