Research Project Part 2: References

Energy Conservation
Through the Use of Alternative Energy Sources

References

Although current infrastructure supports energy generation through the use of fossil fuels,
alternative energies are a pathway to a reduction in fossil fuel consumption by allowing the more efficient use of current energy production technologies because alternative energy generation sources
are readily available by-products and wastes, energy co-generation uses existing infrastructure, and communities can be self sufficient; lowering the demand on large scale energy production.

Buczynski, B. (2011, January 30). Top secret synthetic gas could eleminate carbon emissions. The global warming cause. Retrieved
from http://www.care2.com/causes/

EnerWorks. (n.d.) The Enerworks spectrum preheat appliance: How it works [Brochure]. Retrieved from
http://www.enerworks.com/Pdf/New_Marketing_Fliers/Residential/Spectrum_PreHeat HowItWorks_low.pdf

Eshleman, C. (2009, September 08). Fairbanks businessman Bernie Karl preps portable power plant.Fairbanks
Daily News-Miner. Retrieved from http://www.newsminer.com/

Gaudrell, K. (2009). Biofuel basics. Alternatives Journal, 35, 14-19. Retrieved from http://www.alternativesjournal.ca/

Geuwen, T., Richards, G., & Weber, J. (2010, May). Approaching zero. Mechanical Engineering, 22-27. Retrieved from http://memagazine.asme.org/

Hodgson, P.E. (2008, Spring). The energy crisis. Modern Age, 140-147. Retrieved from http://www.isi.org/journals/modern_age.html

Holahan, T. (n.d.). A Framework for alternative energy development: Shifting from drilling rigs to renewables. Boston College
Environmental Affairs Law Review, 35(321), 321-348. Retrieved from http://www.bc.edu/schools/law/lawreviews/environmental/

Hunt, S. (2008, Spring). Biofuels, neither savior nor scam: The case for selective strategy. World Policy Journal, 9-17.
Retrieved from http://www.worldpolicy.org/

Indrawatti, V., Manaf, A., & Purwadi, G. (2009). Partial replacement of non renewable fossil fuels energy by the use of waste
materials as alternative fuels. American Institute of Physics. doi:10.1063/1.3243249

Kline, K., Dale, V.H., Lee, R., & Leiby, P. (2009, Spring). In defense of biofuels, done right. Issues in Science and
Technology, 75-84. Retrieved from http://www.issues.org/

LePoire, D.J. (2011, Sept-Oct). Exploring new energy alternatives. The Futurist, 35-38. Retrieved from http:///www.wfs.org

Puckett, M.E. (2009). Strategic energy lessons: A Historical perspective applied to America’s oil source issues. Air Force Journal of
Logistics, 32, 8-22. Retrieved from http://www.aflma.hq.af.mil/lgj/journals.asp

Richardson, J. (2011, January 31). Machine that converts plastic to oil fuels Bernie Karl’s big dreams. Fairbanks Daily News-Miner. Retrieved from http://www.newsminer.com/

Schiermeier, Q., Tollefson, J., Scully, T., Witzer, A., & Morton, O. (2008, Aug). Electricity without carbon. Nature,
454(14), 816-823. doi:10.1038/454816a

Severin, M. (2011). Living off the grid and outside the box: A visionary Fairbanks home proves that it can be easy being green. Alaska
Home, 6(3), 57-62.

Research Proposal and Outline: Alternative Energy

Research Proposal and Outline:

Energy Conservation Through the Use of Alternative
Energy Sources

The law of energy conservation states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed,
but only transferred.  What does this law mean for an energy-starving
society that has become aware of it’s responsibility to stop the
damage caused to the environment from the use of fossil fuels?
Hybrid car engineers answered that very question when they figured
out that energy wasted in the form of heat and friction when brakes
were applied to stop a vehicle, could be reclaimed by spinning a
generator to slow the vehicle rather than breaking; thus transferring
rotational energy into electrical energy.  Where else might other
energy losses be conserved to reduce fossil fuel usage?

Although current infrastructure supports energy generation through the use of fossil fuels,
alternative energies are a pathway to a reduction in fossil fuel
consumption by allowing the more efficient use of current energy
production technologies because alternative energy generation sources
are readily available by-products and wastes, energy co-generation
uses existing infrastructure, and communities can be self sufficient;
lowering the demand on large scale energy production.

I. Energy sources are readily available by-products and wastes
A. Bio-diesels
1. plastics
2. 50/50 mix
B. Waste
1. crops
2. methane recapture
C. Heat and motion
1. effluent turbine
2. chemical reaction
II. Energy co-generation uses existing infrastructure
A. Electrical feed
1. UAF Wind Turbine
B. Fuel sources
1. bio-fuels can substitute
2.
C.   Waste heat
1.  existing heating appliance exhaust to heat water
2.

III. Communities can be self sufficient; lowering the demand on large scale energy production.
A.Household Efficiency
1. Design – Alaska house
2. Effluent grey water to spin water turbine
B. Renewable sources
1. wind
2. solar
C.  Landfill methane recapture
1. power plant
2. government office heat

Alaska Natives, Western Thought and Natural Resource Management

“Although many ideas are implemented in the name of progress, progress is not always a positive experience. A Western societal shift in thinking about resources does not cause Alaska Natives to shift their actions to match mainstream thinking because Alaska Natives have a differing world view on the matter of resources, have families to feed who are often on the cusp of poverty, and are battling an oppressive and/or belittling government by outside entities without consultation.”Resource thinking and management through the ages

A.     Pre-Columbus in European society

                 i.     City versus country

                ii.     Feudal system

iii.   It’s impact on European resource availability

B.     Discovery of new lands and peoples

                 i.     North American Indian resource management

                ii.     European view of the abundance of resources and their action’s impact on the environment

              iii.     The clashing of the two viewpoints and what it meant for the available resources

C.     Manifest Destiny and resource management from the North American Indian Standpoint

                 i.     How manifest destiny effected North American Indians resources

                ii.     What happened to the environment and resources as new users moved in (using the environment differently)

              iii.     Standing repercussions to the environment and resources

II.    Alaska Native views on resource management

A.     Small game

                 i.     What constitutes small game and where it dwells

                ii.     How it is caught and for what purpose

              iii.     How it is managed through Alaska Native epistemology before and shortly after contact

              iv.     How it is managed now in Alaska Native epistemology

B.     Large game

                 i.     What constitutes large game and where it dwells

                ii.     How it is caught and for what purpose

              iii.     How it is managed through Alaska Native epistemology before and shortly after contact

              iv.     How it is managed now in Alaska Native epistemology

C.     Oceans bounty

                 i.     What is drawn from the ocean

                ii.     How it is caught and for what purpose

              iii.     How it is managed through Alaska Native epistemology before and shortly after contact

              iv.     How it is managed now in Alaska Native epistemology

D.    Grocery stores are not always a good thing

                 i.     The Carbon footprint of a grocery store in an off the road system store

                ii.     Examples of the carbon footprint of a grocery store in an off the road system store

              iii.     Examples of ways to reduce a grocery store’s carbon footprint

III.  Alaska Native practices – a self limiting process

A.     One family in the bush can eat and harvest how much game then and now

                 i.     A season’s bounty (how much food was absolutely needed and how much actually was harvested)

                ii.     Examples of the self limiting processes (choosing game and how it helps the game population)

              iii.     How does this effect the environment as a whole

B.     Necessary caloric requirements

                 i.     For a hunter on the hunt per day

                ii.     Example of the food resources needed to meet these caloric requirements

              iii.     For a woman at the differing stages of her life

              iv.     Example of the food resources needed to meet these caloric requirements

C.     Practices that ensure sharing then and now

                 i.     What does sharing constitute

                ii.     What did this mean for the environment

              iii.     How has this change through the years

              iv.     What does this mean for the environment

IV.   Governmental regulations

A.     Regulations that were meant to keep resources for non-Natives

                 i.     Hunting practices and implements

1.     Times and dates

2.     With what kind of tools

3.     How much is caught

                ii.     What was the projected and actual impact on the resources

B.     Pro-Alaska Native policies – do they protect the environment?

                 i.     How they came about

                ii.     What they are

              iii.     What was the projected and actual impact on the environment and it’s impact on resource management

Research project: Alaska Natives actions and resource management

“Although many ideas are implemented in the name of progress, progress is not always a positive experience. A Western societal shift in thinking about resources does not cause Alaska Natives to shift their actions to match mainstream thinking because Alaska Natives have a differing world view on the matter of resources, have families to feed who are often on the cusp of poverty, and are battling an oppressive and/or belittling government by outside entities without consultation.”

References

“Craig” George, J. C., & Bockstoce, J. R. (2008). Two historical weapon fragments as an aid to estimating the longevity and movements of bowhead whales. Polar Biology, 31(6), 751-754.

Bates, P. (2007). Inuit and scientific philosophies about planning, prediction, and uncertainty. Arctic Anthropology, 44(2), 87-100.

Bersamin, A., Luick, B. R., Ruppert, E., Stern, J. S., & Zidenberg-Cherr, S. (2006). Diet quality among Yup’ik eskimos living in rural communities is low: The center for alaska native health research pilot study. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 106(7), 1055-1063.

Cassady, J. (2007). A tundra of sickness: The uneasy relationship between toxic waste, TEK, and cultural survival. Arctic Anthropology, 44(1), 87-98.

Eilola, T. M., & Havelka, J. (2011). Behavioural and physiological responses to the emotional and taboo stroop tasks in native and non-native speakers of english. International Journal of Bilingualism, 15(3), 353-369.

Fienup-Riordan, A. (1999). Yaqulget qaillun pilartat (what the birds do): Yup’ik eskimo understanding of geese and those who study them. Arctic, 52(1), 1.

Fienup-Riordan, A. (2003). “Kenekngamceci qanrutamceci (we talk to you because we love you)”: Yup’ik “culturalism” at the umkumiut culture camp. Arctic Anthropology, 40(2), 100-106.

Fogel-Chance, N. (1993). Living in both worlds: `Modernity’ and `tradition’ among north slope inupiaq women in anchorage. Arctic Anthropology, 30(1), 94.

Funk, C. (2010). The bow and arrow war days on the yukon-kuskokwim delta of alaska. Ethnohistory, 57(4), 523-569.

Godden, R., & Mccay, M. A. (1996). Say it again, sam[bo]: Race and speech in huckleberry finn and casablanca. The Mississippi Quarterly, 49, 657+.

Jin, D., & Lin, J. (2011; 2011). Managing tsunamis through early warning systems: A multidisciplinary approach. Ocean & Coastal Management, 54(2), 189-189-199.

Jolles, C. Z. (1994). Cutting meat, sewing skins, telling tales: Women’s stories in gambell, alaska. Arctic Anthropology, 31(1), 86.

Kendrick, A., & Manseau, M. (2008). Representing traditional knowledge: Resource management and inuit knowledge of barren-ground caribou. Society & Natural Resources, 21(5), 404-418.

Leblanc, S. (2000). Groswater technological organization: A decision-making approach. Arctic Anthropology, 37(2), 23.

Lee, M. (2002). The cooler ring: Urban alaska native women and the subsistence debate. Arctic Anthropology, 39(1), 3.

Noongwook, G., Huntington, H. P., & George, J. C. (2007). Traditional knowledge of the bowhead whale (balaena mysticetus) around st. lawrence island, alaska. Arctic, 60(1), 47-54.

Wolsko, C., Lardon, C., Hopkins, S., & Ruppert, E. (2006). Conceptions of wellness among the yup’ik of the Yukon–Kuskokwim delta: The vitality of social and natural connection. Ethnicity & Health, 11(4), 345-363.

High Efficient Appliances are Good for the Consumer and Good for the Environment

Appliances have long been the long and short-arm of the household worker.   From the very first rock there have been tools that we have used in our daily chores.  In this century we have come a tad farther than rocks.  Now we have household gadgets that actually allow human kind to do more – not just do the job easier.  Although some household appliances are expensive, the right kind of appliance can cause the work they do to be highly efficient in their application because they save energy, money and time for consumers.

Since the dawn of man we have used tools to save us time and energy in completing chores.  In the modern age we have retained our simple tools like knives and forks but have also evolved our tool usage into technology laden complex tools like washers, dryers and refrigerators.   Owning a complex appliance is a boon.  They help household workers shorten their workday and to do more in their day by letting the appliances do the work it is intended to do while the worker completes more chores.

While owning a complex appliance can be of a great help to a household worker there are some cons.  Complex tools cost more and can be a drain on energy and finances to pay for more energy usage.  A refrigerator, for example, uses electricity and while it does cool and freeze our food, making our job easier with respect to storing and saving our food, a older appliance can use more electricity/energy and there may be a problem of disposal.

Owning an appliance is also a responsibility – responsibility to energy savings, fitting into your house with respect to space and décor.  Research is the key to find the perfect one for household needs and environmental concerns. Energy Star, a US government service, makes knowing what to look for in the right kind of appliance easier.  Energy Star has rated major household appliances for efficiency use with respect to energy usage and money savings for the consumer.  (Energy Star 2011) Other concerns a consumer might have are space savings or fitting in the space allotted by the consumer or architect.  Looking at where the appliance will fit and how it will fit is a serious concern.  Buying a refrigerator that will be a nuisance because of size – too big or too small – is not a good investment and in the end the consumer may come to resent the appliance.  The same goes for if the appliance is not aesthetically pleasing to fit in with the consumer’s sense of style.

Price is also a factor in choosing an appliance.  The initial outlay of money for some appliances, like a washer, could be significant.  Some washers are upwards of $2500 or much more – a definitive con that has to be outweighed by how much a consumer saves by using the washer.  An Energy Starcertification means, amoung other criteria, that even if the appliance is more expensive than a conventional washer, the consumer will recoup their investment in a “reasonable amount of time.”(Energy Star 2011) This is completed through water savings, if the consumer lives in a place that charges for water usage; through energy savings – using less energy than it’s less efficient counter part to do the same job; and through being able to do more.  For example:  a front loading washer uses 20-25 gallons of water and a regular top loader uses 40 gallons.  Savings are realized through water savings and fuel savings (less water means less fuel to heat the water).  Savings are also realized in how there is less deterioration on clothing therefore the need to buy clothing occurs less often when using a front loading washer.  Spinning action is another avenue of savings for it wrings the clothing out enough to cut down drying time. (California Energy Commission 2006)

Using energy efficient appliances is not only good for the consumer in realized savings; it is also good for the environment.  The environment can be a consideration for the consumer market when manufacturers make appliances that last a long time and that consumers will love.  That mean’s those appliances will not be in landfills but in consumer’s houses.  When an appliance uses less resources in its daily operation that helps our environment.  Using less fuel means less fuel expended to get those resources to a consumer’s house whether it be coal, propane, oil or electricity.  Not using resources also means there is more to go around when those resources will be needed.  The last boon to our environment is the savings through doing the work.  No longer are household workers relegated to painful red cracked hands, tiring tedious or backbreaking work.

A more efficient larger capacity washer uses fewer resources during each operation and the washer runs less often.  This also translates to using fewer products like dryer sheets or ball, detergents and other products that are used during the operation.  It also means the washer will not break down in the same timeline as a conventional washer would because it is used less often due to it’s larger capacity – savings for the consumer, good for the earth, less product in the landfills.

References:

Energy Star. Find Energy Star Products.  Retrieved September 2011 from http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=products.pr_find_es_products

Energy Star. How a Product Earns the ENERGY STAR Label retrieved September 2011 from http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=products.pr_how_earn

Consumer Energy Center. CaliforniaEnergy Commission. 2006. Appliances. Clothes Washers. Retrieved from http://www.consumerenergycenter.org/home/appliances/washers.html

US Environmental Protection Agency, US Department of Energy. August 2008. Appliances Brochure # EPA 430F-08-014.