Landfill

Although the landfill visit was a pain, I thought it presented a fairly innovative solution to waste management, as well as energy creation. I was surprised that the first landfill we went to did not generate energy. This made me think about its purpose, and whether that land had been used appropriately. This landfill technology also raised a lot of questions for me: how much energy is taken to operate the plant compared to how much is produced? Why is there such a strong methane smell, and could this indicate that the methane capture system is not efficient? What dangers does working around methane pose to the workers? How much energy will be generated, and what will happen to the plant when it has reached its energy generating capacity? can it become usable land or will it have to be sectioned off? 

The coolest landfill i visited was in California. It was one that produced methane, but was also used as a nature reserve for species of birds and butterflies. I question why this landfill had no smell but the one we visited did. Perhaps after it is filled and has reached its full capacity, the smell will dissipate and the Sao Paulo landfill can serve some other purpose such as a nature reserve.

Site visits

Site Visits

Solar Plant:

I learned about the structure of the energy company. This was a new venture for them.

I think these technologies were semi effective. At the solar plant, I remember seeing the converter boxes, which take the energy produced by the panels and convert it into a form that can be used easily. I could tell the company was new to the solar panel project. It struck me that they really did not have a solid plan in place for how to recycle the panels if one brakes, or when the panels need to be replaced. I remember the speaker saying that they believe about 60% of the panels are recyclable, but what will happen to the other 40%? Will it be dumped in some waste yard? The solar field was very similar to what I have seen in California. I am not sure if the fields in California use both types of panels though. I think this technology could be improved once the energy company really evaluates how much energy goes into making the panel, how exactly the panels can be recycled, because for the panels to really be considered a sustainable technology, both the production and the disposal of the panels has to be as efficient and wasteless as possible.  Making money was mentioned for this technology, many proprietors were listed as partners on this project.

The policies that regulate this technology are: Net metering is allowed up to 1 megawatt, and solar panel utilities get an 80% reduction in taxes for power generated by solar plants up to 30 MW in size.  Because of new legislation, Brazil has introduced large economic gains for solar companies, or companies converting to solar power.

Bosch:

It was interesting to see the motors being calibrated in  different climate settings. I learned that what Bosch does is creates or fits flex fuel engines for car companies such as; Mercedes, Fiat, Peugeut, and VW. It is interesting that the flex fuel engine has to be calibrated for the fuel that will be used. This is most likely because ethanol and gasoline combust differently and produce different wear on the engine. The Bosch company conducted studies on which stream of ethanol worked better for the engine. They found that preheating the ethanol fuel worked better for combustion because it allowed the fuel to flow in a wider stream. From an economic standpoint, it was interesting to see how popular flex fuel engines were in Brazil. I believe this also accounts for how popular small cars are in Brazil. I have seen very few large SUVs and trucks. I think our speaker mentioned that flex fuel engines work better for smaller cars. I am not sure if this technology can be improved. I definitely think flex fuel engines work better in Brazil than in the US. The environment was not really mentioned as a motivation in the presentation, but we already know that ethanol greatly reduces co2 emissions. I feel that making money was definitely the motivation fueling this technology because car companies always want to develop more ways to give consumers options, so providing the opportunity for two fuel options is a way to sell more cars and please consumers. Brazil’s economy is upheld by sustainable biofuels.  The ethanol program in Brazil has provided stipends to ensure that no light vehicle runs on pure gasoline anymore. This would be extremely beneficial in the US, but in order for this to work, our culture would have to change. We would have to force ourselves to no longer see the purpose of oversized vehicles.

·        

·       Hydro Plant:

·       The thing I remember the most was seeing the large turbines. There was a plant above ground and one underground. The hydroelectric plant was my favorite visit because, from looking at the history, it was easy to see how the plant was rooted in the history of Brazil. It was amazing to hear the turbines actually working and to see all of the controls used to manage them.  It was easy to see the pipes directing the water off the mountain above. Although hydropower produces very few emissions, I do not agree with redirecting natural bodies of water. I think it is wrong to disrupt ecosystems, and it can have detrimental effects on important agricultural areas.  There were only two small gasoline tanks for the entire plant. The history made it easy to see that this plant had been providing power for the towns in Brazil for a very long time. It must have been essential to the energy supply in Brazil for the government to bomb it when citizens were protesting in the 1930?s. This hydro plant upholds the economy with jobs. The following link reviews the negative sides of hydro plants.

·       http://wwwp.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroom/2013/01/brazil-hydropower-energy

Gasland Questions

Why hasn't fracking been more closely regulated from the beginning?
How is the tainted water stored and contained after it is used in the fracking process? why hasn't this process been regulated?
What tactics were this gas company using to make the people in the video so worried to show their faces?

Policy class post

I wasn't in class today so I can't really write about the discussion. From what I know, the US plan is fairly cohesive. The important matter is whether the large natural gas and oil companies will not stand in the way of new technology. I know that it is common for these companies to buy patents to this technology in order to keep gas popular and prevent the technology from being released. I feel that this is a probable cause for other countries and cities advancing farther in alternative technology that we are.
we also have to remember that obama's energy plan, is a claim made by a politician. Although he has many great advisors, he is not directly in touch with the technology or the rate at which technological advances are being made. Setting such high standards can even be counterproductive in some situations, and build a deficit because of the cost of enforcing unrealistic regulations. It seems that in some cases, Obama's plan does not match up with even the EPA's predictions for how much vehicle mileage will be raised to accomodate new standards, (to an average of 34.1). Obama's prediction is actually underambitious and is not synced with how far our technology has advanced so far. http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2013/07/is-obama-setting-real-climate-goals

that other movie

Proposed solution

This movie proposed a combination of solutions. They explained an analogy where the gap or triangle of where we need to be in order to keep the world healthy with our emissions was taken and broken into sections that represent the amount of each sustainable energy that needs to be implemented in the future. They proposed that scrubbers be inserted into waste pipes to capture carbon dioxide. The move also proposed that we need to focus more on switching to solar energy so that the US can be at the forefront of the technological race. This movie also touched on the importance of biofuel and how scientists are working on switching to plant based fuels, as well as a process that involves yeast converting plant matter into alcohol that can be used to power cars. T A chinese company was the first to cheapen solar panels and mass produce them. There was a chinese city lined and powered by solar panels. What this movie proved is that the US is not the most advanced in alternative technology. 

I do not agree with the analogy they used. I think it was oversimplified and did not take into account the financial gains and losses of each type of technology, as well as who would be able to afford it. Different alternative technologies work best for specific climates and geographic settings, this was not taken into account. They also did not touch on hydroelectric, they barely touched on wind, and they talked about only the basic technology, not the new advancements. It was too basic and broad to be useful. It said that efficiency was enough to remove 1/3 of the carbon we produce now, but this sounds inaccurate, and this was not well supported. It did touch on how nuclear energy is now stable and is a good method because it does not release CO2, but they really did not go into detail on how the waste would be stored, or how long it would take us to use up all of our storage after implanting more nuclear centers. Also I feel like this movie praised the method of carbon sequestration, when really, carbon sequestration could possibly affect water sources, or soil, which are also limited resources.

The term environment, society and economy, is really broad and this question is really irrelevant to the topics addressed the movie. Yes, the movie touched on ESE but not as well as they should. There honestly were no details on economic plans, or how we were going to be able to afford the switch to alternative energy. The movie did mention that all of our transportation infrastructure in the US is built based on fossil fuel filled cars, and it would cost an outrageous amount of money to rework the system all of the roads, gas stations and transportation routes to fit a new alternative energy. So in addition to finding an alternative fuel source that is cheap, reliable, and efficient at greatly reducing carbon emissions, we need a source that will work with minimal changes to the infrastructure we already have in place.

An Inconvenient Truth

I honestly was bothered by this movie because Al Gore's voice is so annoying, but it is an ok overview of the important points of global warming. I honestly think it was more of a publicity movie to broadcast Al Gore and how "nice and altruistic and caring" he is, but a politician is a politician.

Answer these questions on your blog DUE Day 3- July 8^th Before Class

An Inconvenient Truth (2006)

 http://documentarylovers.com/an-inconvenient-truth/

Based on the video; please answer the questions below in thoughtful and complete sentences.

1.     What image started the modern day environmental movement?

The image of the earth is what helped people visualize what it would be like to ruin their only home. It was the first time people felt a strong connection to their home planet upon seeing a visual of it.

2.     What is considered the most vulnerable part of the earth system?

The atmosphere is the most vulnerable because it is extremely thin.

3.     Relatively speaking, compared to the earth, how thick is the atmosphere?

The atmosphere is extremely thin, it is made of two layers, the hemisphere and the stratisphere, combined only about a mile thick.

4.     How can trapping infrared radiation by the earth’s atmosphere be a GOOD thing?

The atmosphere it heats the earth where it needs to be heated, making the earth liveable and pleasant.

5.     How can trapping infrared radiation by the earth’s atmosphere be a BAD thing?

When the rays cannot leave, they stay and heat the parts of the earth that are not supposed to be heated. This starts a chain reaction that offsets the delicate balance of certain ecosystems.

6.      What percentage of people depend on glacial melt for their drinking water?

a.     About 40 % depend on glacial melt for drinking water. This is important because when the glaciers cease to exist, these people will experience drinking water shortages.

7.     Why is studying ice cores important?

The ice cores are  like the rings of a tree. Each layer can tell how much co2 was absorbed by the ice in that year. From this combined info over years, scientists can infer if and how co2 levels are rising and how the ice will be affected.

8.     What is the relationship between carbon dioxide (CO2) and atmospheric temperature?

Co2 traps rays causing atmospheric temperature to increase. This results in global warming.

9.     Over what time period have the hottest 10 years on earth occurred?

The last 14 years before 2006. This is in our lifetime that the earth has experienced the greatest amount of damage. This is why there are many theories saying that we need to take action against pollution and climate change to keep our planet liveable and healthy.

10.  As the water temperature under a hurricane increases, what happens to the wind velocity of the

storm?

            Wind velocity increases as well as precipitation. This explains how with global warming, we see the rate and severity of natural disasters increase as well.

11.  What has happened to Lake Chad over the years?

It has dried up over the years.

12.  How much of the suns radiation gets reflected by ice?

a.     90% so when the ice is gone, this radiation will also be trapped in the worlds atmosphere and the effects of global warming will be accelerated.

13.  What redistributes energy from the equator to the north and south poles?

a.     Ocean and wind currents redistribute energy from the equator to the north and south poles. Because we are releasing energy in the form of pollutants such as co2, this energy will be redistributed through ocean and wind currents, making them un naturally powerful, and natural disasters more harmful.

14.   If the ice sheets of Western Antarctica were to melt, approximately how much would sea level

rise?

            The melted ice sheets would  cause the water to rise 20 feet. Ecosystems would be drastically changed.

15.  List the three factors causing the collision between civilization and earth

a.     Food needs, growth in population, economic situation

1. civilization is expanding always

2. surging economy

3.energy needs, coal reserved, scientific and tech revolution

old habits plus new technology

our economic situation is a problem because the more we focus on money and cutting corners, the less we take the time and the precautions to protect the environment.  the same is true for the food situation.

16. Approximately, what percentages of global carbon dioxide emissions come from forest fires?

30% this is relatively low. I dont know whether this really is a factor because forest fires occur naturally. If gore really could prove that forest fires are started because of the co2 already in the atmosphere, then i could say it was a factor.

17. What country is the largest contributor of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere?

China/ Usa. China is one of the largest  co2 emission contributors because of the large population and the  amount of people with cars.

18. Which country has the lowest government standards for gas mileage of automobiles?

USA. This is not surprising to me because we have gotten in the habit of making way for large businesses and will lax our environmental standards with their coaxing just to get people to drive more and buy more cars.

19. Which two nations have not signed onto the Kyoto Protocol?

USA, Australia. This is really surprising to me because it shows that these two countries value business over protecting the world from global warming.