The thing I found most interesting was the Nuclear Power topic actually. Though we didn't spend much time on it, it was a topic that I wasn't exposed to much so I enjoyed learning about it. I saw that the instructor had a hard time explaining the concept of E=mc^2, and even through all the blank stares he got from my classmates I thought he did a really good job explaining a actually very complex subject. Nuclear energy is a crazy/genius idea hasn't been really expanded on since the late 1950's, but who can tell what key it will have to our future.
I did research into the reason why it hasn't been developed more and found that the fear after WWII that extensive research might lead to wide spread nuclear weapons put such ideas to rest. On the site www.Nuclearpoernow.com they say they will be able to reprocess nuclear waste into energy, if this is possible nuclear energy has less drawbacks than other energies. With this the only fear would be the use of the knowlegde to create weapons which would devistate the world, because if one country decided to use them, then we all would.
Monday, June 7, 2010
Nuclear Energy
After reading the information in the article I have the same basic opinion, which is that nuclear power is a far better energy source than petroleum products but is very harmful to the well being of our planet. It produces a lot of power but the radioactive waste would devastate the earth if it was widely used. Eventually we (humans) will be back at the same point as we are now but instead of thinking about global warming it will be problems such as large areas of uninhabitable space because of the number of decommissioned power plants that will undoubtedly grow. In the article it says "it's a fallacy to say one energy source is better, and that we should use it everywhere", and I believe this statement is true because, all energy comes from some where petroleum is the energy from organisms that die centuries ago but someday it will be all gone every energy has such a drawback the source can't continue forever. The article also states that technological advances are likely to make nuclear power less expensive and less carbon intensive, I thing this is good but they state nothing about methods of disposing of the waste. Generally whatever actions we take on this energy topic won't be good for the earth and shows that majorly people don't care as long as their lights are on.
Monday, May 17, 2010
Bottled Water
According to the Aquafina official site www.aquafina.com, they use the patented state of the art hyDRO-7 system to purify there water to give us the pure and perfect taste in their bottled water. According to their site what the hyDRO-7 system does is remove anything that make the water taste bad. Personally I think this whole notion of bottled water is ridiculous. To pay so much for a barely detectable taste and brand name for the same water we are provided with at home is a moral travesty. Buying what I call re bottled water from corporations is all we are doing. Its just short of selling ice to a Eskimo, we are like the Eskimo who can't see that he is surrounded by the very ice we just bought. Maybe its just a general mistrust of the corporations, who's only goals are to make more profit than what they spend or maybe its a valid argument to be concerned with. One thing I will say is that bottled water is convenient.
According to the Aquafina official site www.aquafina.com, they use the patented state of the art hyDRO-7 system to purify there water to give us the pure and perfect taste in their bottled water. According to their site what the hyDRO-7 system does is remove anything that make the water taste bad. Personally I think this whole notion of bottled water is ridiculous. To pay so much for a barely detectable taste and brand name for the same water we are provided with at home is a moral travesty. Buying what I call re bottled water from corporations is all we are doing. Its just short of selling ice to a Eskimo, we are like the Eskimo who can't see that he is surrounded by the very ice we just bought. Maybe its just a general mistrust of the corporations, who's only goals are to make more profit than what they spend or maybe its a valid argument to be concerned with. One thing I will say is that bottled water is convenient.
Homework Options 1&2
1. Hydrogen is a chemical element that is the lightest and most abundant element. It is used to power the rockets we send into space. So why do we not harness its power and use it in cars instead of gasoline? The problem as I recognize it is in the storage capacity, because in the gas pressure it is typically stored at it uses four times the space of gasoline even though it is three times lighter. Another problem is pure hydrogen doesn't occur naturally and must be produced mostly by reforming methane gas (CH4). Hydrogen can be spilt from water, but the process is to impractical for conventional use since hydrogen splits from oxygen at a temperature of 2500 C. I don't think hydrogen is a future energy solution because, it is not a energy source like coal or fossil fuels, it is only an energy carrier so we must put energy into it before we can get energy out of it. The only way that hydrogen can become an accurate energy solution is if we can produce it, and get much more energy back that it costs us to produce it such as using solar thermal energy to produce it.
2. Ethanol could easily be used as a fuel source for cars, countries such as Brazil already have laws for there fuels to have at least a 25% mixture of ethanol and 75% gasoline. Also having car that run on pure ethanol. Ethanol as a fuel would be great but effect on other parts of the economy might be seen, such as higher food prices and more land needed to devote to growing agriculture that can be refined in to ethanol like corn. Since corn or some refined variation of it is found in many of the foods that we consume, it may be unrealistic of us to decide to fuel our technologies with our food source. We could literally drive ourselves to starvation if ethanol is a major and widely used fuel source.
1. Hydrogen is a chemical element that is the lightest and most abundant element. It is used to power the rockets we send into space. So why do we not harness its power and use it in cars instead of gasoline? The problem as I recognize it is in the storage capacity, because in the gas pressure it is typically stored at it uses four times the space of gasoline even though it is three times lighter. Another problem is pure hydrogen doesn't occur naturally and must be produced mostly by reforming methane gas (CH4). Hydrogen can be spilt from water, but the process is to impractical for conventional use since hydrogen splits from oxygen at a temperature of 2500 C. I don't think hydrogen is a future energy solution because, it is not a energy source like coal or fossil fuels, it is only an energy carrier so we must put energy into it before we can get energy out of it. The only way that hydrogen can become an accurate energy solution is if we can produce it, and get much more energy back that it costs us to produce it such as using solar thermal energy to produce it.
2. Ethanol could easily be used as a fuel source for cars, countries such as Brazil already have laws for there fuels to have at least a 25% mixture of ethanol and 75% gasoline. Also having car that run on pure ethanol. Ethanol as a fuel would be great but effect on other parts of the economy might be seen, such as higher food prices and more land needed to devote to growing agriculture that can be refined in to ethanol like corn. Since corn or some refined variation of it is found in many of the foods that we consume, it may be unrealistic of us to decide to fuel our technologies with our food source. We could literally drive ourselves to starvation if ethanol is a major and widely used fuel source.
Monday, April 19, 2010
The Ozone Controversy
The ozone controversy? Is it really a controversy? Not to me, it seems pretty obvious that this controversy is far less of a problem than what the news, the government, or some scientist's want us to believe. I've looked at the information for both sides of the issue, and it seems to me that this whole controversy is just a simple theory that has gotten out of control. A theory that has much less proof of validation compared to reasons of its falsification. The original scientists who had started the panic about the "hole in the Ozone layer" didn't even have any facts to back what they were saying. They reported it to the government and started a panic and began to produce fact to suit their theory, instead of their theory to suit the facts.
Who are we as humans to believe that we can, in essence control nature, control the living earth. Such thoughts are foolish, the earth has been here billions of years, with drastic climate changes that we don't have any information about. Billions of years in which humans have existed for less than a tenth of. To think that we control the climate of the planet to the degree that those who say our CFC's or CO2's will cause such drastic devastation is ridiculous.
The ozone controversy? Is it really a controversy? Not to me, it seems pretty obvious that this controversy is far less of a problem than what the news, the government, or some scientist's want us to believe. I've looked at the information for both sides of the issue, and it seems to me that this whole controversy is just a simple theory that has gotten out of control. A theory that has much less proof of validation compared to reasons of its falsification. The original scientists who had started the panic about the "hole in the Ozone layer" didn't even have any facts to back what they were saying. They reported it to the government and started a panic and began to produce fact to suit their theory, instead of their theory to suit the facts.
Who are we as humans to believe that we can, in essence control nature, control the living earth. Such thoughts are foolish, the earth has been here billions of years, with drastic climate changes that we don't have any information about. Billions of years in which humans have existed for less than a tenth of. To think that we control the climate of the planet to the degree that those who say our CFC's or CO2's will cause such drastic devastation is ridiculous.
Monday, April 5, 2010
1.My class expectations are to learn as much as I can, and gain the knowledge that I am paying for.
2.My impressions of the first day were that, this class had kind of a different feel to it. I felt that the teacher really wants to be there which is most important. As long as he gives off that type of energy of wanting to teacher I thing I will be able to continue wanting to learn.
3.I hope to learn anything that Im taught and to come away with some information that will be useful at some point in my life, I don't want to come out the class with no recollection that I was ever exsposed to any information.
2.My impressions of the first day were that, this class had kind of a different feel to it. I felt that the teacher really wants to be there which is most important. As long as he gives off that type of energy of wanting to teacher I thing I will be able to continue wanting to learn.
3.I hope to learn anything that Im taught and to come away with some information that will be useful at some point in my life, I don't want to come out the class with no recollection that I was ever exsposed to any information.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)