Research Final Draft – Pure Power: Clean power needs clean delivery

While new sources of energy are often the focus of environmental discussions, little thought is given to the logistical infrastructure that is needed and how improving this system will bring about benefits just as much as a new power source. Some of the new challenges caused by alternative energy sources such as solar power that only produce power in daylight, can also be overcome with improved infrastructure for power grids. The electric grid of today is outdated and in desperate need of an upgrade (FitzPatrick, 2012). Old grids of simple wires and transformers designed to move power short distances will not be able to keep up with alternative energy sources. Storage needs to be a part of any truly efficient electrical network; today’s electrical supply has no storage. If companies and consumers can handle the upfront costs of rebuilding the grid; all parties will benefit greatly in the long run. Although new alternative sources of energy need to be found for the United States, the infrastructure that will handle and use that power must be upgraded as well because of old power grids, little storage capacity and economic benefit for all.

The electrical infrastructure today is a massive technical marvel of immense proportions. The problem of controlling the massive amount of power and complexity of “the grid” falls to groups called Regional Transmission Organizations (RTOs). These organizations are the current system of large scale movement of energy between companies. RTOs are nonprofit organizations that are responsible for connecting the individual networks of utility companies (Greenfield, 2011). These RTOs allow for electricity to be moved to where it is needed. When it is needed, this committee is finite and can only act on the limited information available today. The current power system doesn’t inform the supplier where the power is going. The only way to receive minimal information is by using smaller grids that don’t allow for long distance power transmission. So how can this information be gathered and how can it be used? What needs to happen is the grid needs to “smarten” up. A two-way system of electricity and data returns equals better usage of our resources. The so called “smart” grid adds a new dimension to the traditional one way system currently in place. Instead of blindly pumping power through the transmission lines and not knowing the use or waste of that power, the smart grid can inform the producers of who needs power and how much (Bushby, 2011). By using constant monitoring technology power companies can know what every user is using instantly. This allows for a computerized grid to react in real time. Power can be directed to where it would be most effective, and surpluses and shortages can be corrected. This will give RTOs a better chance of making good decisions regarding power production. Another possible solution is called “A day-ahead energy market simulation framework.” This network uses past data and future predictions to tell how much energy should be produced by a power plant (Palma-Behnke, 2012). These predictions will become more important as smaller, more decentralized generators come online. If everyone puts a solar panel on their roof, suddenly there is a varying amount of power being put in the grid that the power company can’t control. Knowing what will happen a day in advance will allow power companies to maximize profits and minimize waste. Besides prediction, a Smart grid allows for instantaneous transfers of power across states and countries. If the wind picks up in Utah and the grid realizes that there is a surplus, it can send that power to Oregon, where the solar plants are under cloud cover. This shuffling of resources saves a coal plant in Oregon from turning on to cover and saves the wind companies from losing money on power plants with no customers.

The solar radiation power plants and wind power plants offer great sources of renewable energy but the sun is not always shining when it is needed and the wind doesn’t blow consistently. The addition of storage to a wind or solar system can also make these technologies competitive with conventional technologies. The ability to control when power is produced greatly affects the ability to make profit (Sioshansi, 2011). For example, if a solar plant has no storage, it pours energy out during the middle of the day when energy is cheap and this makes the price fall more. When the sun goes down, people go home and start using power but the solar plant has no supply to meet the demand. By adding storage, plant managers can release power when it will create the most profit, making this alternative source more desirable for the capitalist market. There are many new options to store energy besides just hooking a lot of AAs together. While standard batteries are a good option, they break down, are inefficient, and are expensive. Some simple materials can be used in unusual ways.  Systems that use compressed air can be used exclusively for storage or for storage as well as production. A plain tank of compressed air has energy that can be put through a turbine and converted to electricity. Air that is compressed by the waves of the ocean not only creates clean, renewable energy but also storable energy. Waves are used to compress a chamber on the shoreline and the air in this chamber is pressurized then converted to power when needed. The technology to store air is available and well tested. High levels of efficiency, up to 85%, are possible with compressed air power systems (Garvey, 2012). Another simple solution is a tank of water stored underground. By heating the water with solar energy then storing it underground, its heat is preserved until it is needed to heat a building (Yumrutaş, 2012). While this is not a solution for mass energy storage, every house that uses this system does not need power from elsewhere for heating. Many complex systems can also be used with even greater success. Latent heat energy systems which use the energy storage potential of phase change (such as ice becoming water) to store up to 14 times more heat than non-phase based storage methods. Instead of heating water up and storing it as warm water, a material that has a low evaporation temperature is heated past its boiling point then stored. This technology utilizes the idea of latent heat which is that materials absorb much more energy when changing state. By exploiting the natural phenomena of latent heat, energy can be stored in quantities never thought possible before. Raising the temperature of water from 99 degrees Celsius to 100 degrees takes 500% more heat energy then heating water from 0 to 99 degrees. Using special materials that are selected for this purpose allows this method to do more than water and ice could ever do. Materials can be selected that have higher latent heat demands than water. The more energy a material needs to heat up the more heat it will release as it cools. By using chemicals such as lauric acid, large amounts of heat energy can be stored for many uses (Desgrosseilliers, 2011). Special artificial paraffin capsules have also shown promise as a material that holds heat to extreme temperature yet does not degrade after hundreds of recharging cycles (Su, 2012). The problem of storage can be countered by using chemical reactions to store the energy until needed. Instead of directly making electricity, solar heat is used to split water or drive other processes. Water can easily be broken down to hydrogen and oxygen, which can be used to create power with zero pollution. By coating electrodes in exotic metals, researchers have created solar power systems that can take sunlight and use it to break water into its base components. When power is needed and the sun is not shining the hydrogen and oxygen are reintroduced back into the water and this releases electricity on demand. (Myers, 2011) This new technology allows for clean, alternative energy that can supply electricity whether the sun is shining or not. The only byproducts are oxygen, which all life needs to live, and hydrogen, a fuel that burns perfectly cleanly. A motor running on hydrogen puts off water vapor as exhaust. Any technology that produces all good byproducts should be invested in heavily. One of the biggest advantages of breaking apart water or some other compound is that no insulation is needed. While a tank of superheated water or sodium will eventually cool, hydrogen and oxygen will keep their energy potential until they are remixed. Instead of using heat that naturally dissipates, the chemical bonds are what the energy is stored in. By not needing to be kept hot, chemical solutions allow for infinite storage times. The insane amounts of heat easily available from solar reactors, up to 2000K, make these chemical reactions possible and economical (Heintz, 2012). Two thousand degrees Kelvin is enough heat to easily melt steel and break down many chemical compounds, not just water. Every chemical bond that is broken takes energy and when the compounds recombine that energy is released. Flywheel Energy Storage Systems are another solution for storing energy to be released later. A spinning wheel contains energy that can be used later to turn a generator. While simple flywheels run on metal bearings and can lose energy to friction, new versions run on magnetic bearings inside a vacuum. With no mechanical resistance or air resistance, these wheels can hold energy for longer periods of time with minimal loss (Prodromidis, 2012). Massive banks of flywheels can wind up and store a huge amount of power for later use. By using storage to get the most out of our resources, the environment would benefit from reduced emissions while companies would benefit from maximized profits.

However, upgrading the United States utility grid to a smart grid and adding storage would not be easy. The large initial expenses lead companies to drag their feet.  The costs of upgrading are passed down to consumers who don’t like paying more; this causes public opinion to turn against this needed technology. Even though studies have shown that over a twenty year period the smart grid and storage will pay for itself, (Fox-Penner, 2011) no customer wants a higher bill and no company wants to lose profit. What people need to realize is the overall gains far outweigh the temporary costs. The smaller utility companies have a much harder time fronting the cash needed to upgrade their systems to a smart grid due to less capital and fewer customers (Chun, 2011). This problem can be solved with closer cooperation between large and small companies to share resources and increase profits even faster. By working together, everyone would benefit. Planning these new systems would be difficult, but humans don’t need to do it all. Bacteria can plan our power system better than we can; a method of planning networking reconstruction is to use a “bacterial foraging optimization algorithm” (Sathish Kumer, 2012). This equation is based on bacterial growth models and can find the network setup that loses the least energy. By studying the natural organization of bacteria foraging, scientists developed a mathematical formula that can create the optimal design for power distribution. Evolutionary algorithms are designed to solve non-linear problems that computers are not very good at solving. When single celled organisms can create better solutions then humankind, things need to change.

Between new storage technology and better designed transmission systems, there are many ways the problem of an aging energy infrastructure can be addressed. If millions of dollars are being poured into new ways of creating energy, it only makes sense to improve the support system equally; otherwise all the work goes to waste. These ideas need to be used. Power companies need to research ways to upgrade and modernize their systems. When they do look closely at green solutions they will find that the company will benefit both environmentally and economically by upgrading their networks. The companies that first embrace this new technology will lead the way for the industry. When the industry begins to adapt the vital infrastructure needed, the ultimate winner will be the environment and therefore people everywhere.

References

Bushby, S. T. (2011). Information Model Standard for Integrating Facilities with Smart Grid. ASHRAE Journal, 53(11), B18-B22.

Chun, S., Sandoval, R., Arens, Y., Sarfi, R. J., Tao, M. K., & Gemoets, L. (2011). Making the smart grid work for community energy delivery. Information Polity: The International Journal Of Government & Democracy In The Information Age, 16(3), 267-281.

Desgrosseilliers, L., Safatli, A., Osbourne, N., Marin, G., White, M., Murray, R., & … Groulx, D. (2011). Phase change material selection in the design of a latent heat energy storage system coupled with a domestic hot water solar thermal system. ASHRAE Transactions, 117(2), 183-190.

FitzPatrick, K. (2012, January 23). Upgrading the electric grid. Retrieved from http://sites.duke.edu/sjpp/2012/upgrading-the-electric-grid/

Fox-Penner, P., Faruqui, A., & Grasso, D. (2011). Moving to the smart grid. Issues In Science & Technology, 27(4), 12-16.

Garvey, S. D. (2012). The dynamics of integrated compressed air renewable energy systems. Renewable Energy: An International Journal, 39(1), 271-292. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2011.08.019

Greenfield, D., & Kwoka, J. (2011). The Cost Structure of Regional Transmission Organizations. Energy Journal, 32(4), 159-181. doi:10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vo132-No4-7

Heintz, A. (2012). Solar energy combined with chemical reactive systems for the production and storage of sustainable energy. A review of thermodynamic principles. Journal Of Chemical Thermodynamics, 4699-108. doi:10.1016/j.jct.2011.08.023

Myers, A. (2011, June 20). Stanford team devises a better solar-powered water splitter. Retrieved from http://news.stanford.edu/news/2011/june/solar-water-splitter-062011.html

Palma-Behnke, R., Jiménez-Estévez, G., Vargas, L. S., Handschin, E., Uphaus, F., & Hauptmeier, E. (2012). A day-ahead energy market simulation framework for assessing the impact of decentralized generators on step-down transformer power flows. International Journal Of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, 35(1), 10-20. doi:10.1016/j.ijepes.2011.08.009

Prodromidis, G. N., & Coutelieris, F. A. (2012). Simulations of economical and technical feasibility of battery and flywheel hybrid energy storage systems in autonomous projects. Renewable Energy: An International Journal, 39(1), 149-153. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2011.07.041

Sathish Kumar, K. K., & Jayabarathi, T. T. (2012). Power system reconfiguration and loss minimization for an distribution systems using bacterial foraging optimization algorithm. International Journal Of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, 36(1), 13-17. doi:10.1016/j.ijepes.2011.10.016

Sioshansi, R. (2011). Increasing the value of wind with energy storage. Energy Journal, 32(2), 1-29.

Su, J., Wang, X., Wang, S., Zhao, Y., & Huang, Z. (2012). Fabrication and properties of microencapsulated-paraffin/gypsum-matrix building materials for thermal energy storage. Energy Conversion & Management, 55101-107. doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2011.10.015

Yumrutaş, R., & Ünsal, M. (2012). Energy analysis and modeling of a solar assisted house heating system with a heat pump and an underground energy storage tank. Solar Energy, 86(3), 983-993. doi:10.1016/j.solener.2012.01.008

Spring 2012: Response 1-5: Environment – asduckworth (resubmitted as original was turned in on time, but was MIA & never graded–here it is!!)

Article #1

Bryan Walsh’s article, “Getting Real About the High Price of Cheap Food” addresses consumers of a wide range of ages ranging from young adults to the elderly people. Walsh examines the horrifying way Americans eat today, the negative impact this type of eating has on a human’s body, and how a small, but growing number of people (such as ranchers and farmers) are adapting the way the country eats by raising their livestock in ways that is healthy for the environment. The article paints a vividly graphic picture that makes a person’s stomach churn, making this an effective technique to convey Walsh’s message. On the one hand, more than 250 tons of manure, which is produced in a week, causes a foul stench on feedlots. In addition, the feed corn takes millions of tons of fertilizer, which in the end produces carbon dioxide from all the active farming. On the other, people like Bill Niman use natural resources, such as grass, to feed his cattle while regulating where the cattle graze to prevent soil erosion. With a low density of cattle on his land, the manure acts as a natural fertilizer rather than a waste. One massive argument regarding healthy eating lies within the major expense incurred to make nutritious food in this way as well as the financial impact it has on consumers’ pocketbooks. This type of change dramatically affects all involved parties for the financial endeavors it creates to eat healthy. I would then like to research the financial impact per geographical area throughout the United States.

Article #2

Alan Weisman & Antonin Kratochvil’s article, “Nothing Wasted, Everything Gained”, addresses adults who have an interest in living sensible lifestyles by making the most from available resources. The authors demonstrate how even the apparently lean area of Gaviota, Colombia can flourish with using basic common sense by utilizing resources in the area to set up a community that is self-sufficient revolving around clean, renewable industries (Weisman, A. & Kratochvil, A., 1998). The article is quite effective in that way the authors demonstrate how the pioneer settlers turned the muddy streams filled with malaria into sterilized drinking water. The Gaviotans made solar “kitties”. These solar “kitties” were used to make the water appropriate for human consumption. They also made heaters that turned tropical breezes into energy water heaters that worked even in the rain. The Gaviotans decided to turn their pharmacy into an herbal apothecary by using the 250 native plant species in the area.

The active involvement of the community members led to regeneration of the rain forest there, which helped to save the diminishing numbers of animals (like hawks, anteaters, and deer) by restoring their habitat. The Gaviotans continue to proceed with expanding their community by making it more self-sufficient by starting more projects, which include a musical instrument factory utilizing wood from the pine forest and a purified water bottling plant. These developments will provide jobs for employment for the residents. The authors address concerns about how challenging this meek environment could be to live in; however, they also show how the inhabitants have made the best out of everything. If I were to research this further, I would want to be able to see what other areas resemble that of Gaviota, and if those places could be turned around in a positive way such as this one.

References

Weisman, A., & Kratochvil, A. (1998). Nothing wasted, everything gained. Mother Jones, 23(2), 56.

Article #3

Tom Philpot’s article, “How Factory Farms are Killing Seals”, reveals how the medicines and antibiotics used on the animals which are raised on feed lots do not really leave the land which they are raised on. The feed lot owners will actually tell people this as well as claiming that the antibiotics that are given to the animals are harmless to humans, wanting them to believe it; however, this is not true. Many of the farm hands that have been working on or near these feed lots have been in contact with some horrid bacteria. This bacteria actually came from the antibiotics which had been given to the animals, then mixed into the ground in which the workers had been working with every day. The problems continue to grow from there as researchers found a type of E.coli that now affects the sea mammals of the Pacific Northwest region. Researchers shared their discoveries with Vancouver, providing them with the title, “Swimming in Sick Seas” (Philpot, T., 2012). That should make people stop and think. If it doesn’t, who knows what will. Sea animals, such as sea otters and seals, swim in these areas. These areas are also places where people get their drinking water. If people were to become ill from drinking this water, they would have a difficult time treating their illness with antibiotics because it is these antibiotics that started the outbreak to begin with. It becomes one vicious cycle without a positive solution for now.

Reference

Philpot, T. (2012). How Factory Farms are Killing Seals. Retrieved from http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpot/2012/02/how-factory-farms-are-killing-seals

Website

If a person is seeking a website that is committed to exploring waste that has been spread from coast to coast, the Trash Trip is the a terrific site for doing this. Trash Trip points out and draws attention to the large quantities of valuable resources that go toward disposing of our trash. There are massive numbers of posts for finding and the deposits and uses of trash everywhere. This website using pictures as well as a blots style of posts to not only tell of the mess humans are making all around, but to also show others exactly how this looks, which is quite an effective technique for conveying the message. Today’s society cannot continue to carelessly dispose of garbage; we must find other ways to reduce our waste and find alternative, productive methods to dispose of the humongous piles of trash which are destroying the world we live in. This site shows how this waste has the opportunity to contaminate the water supply and hurt many forms of life, from the microscopic level to up to humans. This website’s focal point revolves around how damaging trash is on the world around us. There are many ways to help prevent this compilation of trash, such as by recycling. All people need to take an active part in reducing our waste and cleaning up the earth. If knowledge was spread to share the information about the damage mankind was doing to the earth due to trash through newspapers., websites, and articles, perhaps more people would pay attention and take notice to help support the cause to save the earth.

Video: Collapse

Chris Smith’s 2009 film, Collapse, reveals an in-depth interview with author Michael Ruppert. The film’s relevance came at a significant time when the economic crisis hit in late 2008. Michael Ruppert’s response to the crisis was, “I told you so”. Ruppert establishes himself as an advocate for sustainable living as well as an investigative journalist. Smith reveals the claims that he is a conspiracy theorist as he doesn’t want anything hidden. This video provides highlights of Ruppert’s career as well as how he pieced together the links between the oil industries, other energy options, and the crumbling economy. His claim that the road back down around the bell curve for humans is inevitable; it already has been and still can be foreseen. From an environmental perspective, the film appears to be trustworthy as a source of information that it shares. Ruppert points out how the humans drain and depend on oil, and he also draws attention to all of the downfalls with the other sources of alternative energy. It became quite apparent that the knowledge Ruppert has about this subject was not intended to be shared, and he has been targeted by others who want that information to remain unknown. Some well-known people who want this information to be kept secret are former Vice President Cheney and former Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. Smith uses his technique or style to create doubt around Ruppert’s validity. In closing the documentary notes that Ruppert’s financial as well as personal life seems grim.

Reference

Smith, C. (Director). (2009). Collapse {Documentary}. United States: Vitagraph Films

Final Draft: Eat Organic, or All Is Lost

Where our food comes from can make an impact on the environment, either for the good or the bad.  Grocery stores have many food choices ranging from foods with organic labels to foods that are not organic.  There is a large gap between the number of choices that are organic and those that are not, and the majority of those choices are not organic. Conventional agriculture and organic agriculture are very different forms of agriculture, but both provide the foods available in grocery stores.  Conventional agriculture is, at this time, the dominate way of farming.  The way animals are held and raised for consumer consumption can be differentiated as either inorganic or organic as well.  In both forms of agriculture, crop and animal, organic farming provides a healthier alternative means of production for the environment.  Although there are many choices in a grocery store, organic foods should be seriously considered over inorganic produced foods because organic farming reduces chemical pollutions, animal pollutants, and preserves our lands and plants species.

Conventional farming techniques implement the use of chemicals for synthetic herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizers.  When we choose foods that are not labeled as organic, we may not only be getting more than we bargained for with chemical covered foods, but we also contribute to the continued use of chemicals for the production of food products.  In crop agriculture farmers face challenges, in areas of weed control, pest control, and fertilization of crops for the purpose of greater yield. When it comes to growing crops, conventional agriculture and organic agriculture use different methods to help get the best possible results.  For the control of weeds, conventional agriculture uses chemical herbicides.  Weeds can become resistant to herbicides, rendering the herbicide, or combination of herbicides, less effective as time goes by (Mortensen et al., 2012).  Mortensen et al. (2012) asserts that more a greater amount of herbicide is the result of better resilience against the chemicals of the herbicide.  Mortensen et al. also argues that the use of combined herbicides, the use of two herbicides instead of just one, can also result in herbicide resilience in weeds.  Due to the fact that organic agriculture does not implement the use of chemicals for weed control, organic agriculture must rely on other forms of management (Gomiero et al., 2011).  According to Howard (1943), Altieri (1987), Lamplin (2002), Lotter (2003), Altieri & Nichols (2004), Koepf (2006), Kristiansen et al. (2006), Gliessman (2007), practices to control weeds in an organic manner include “appropriate rotation, seeding timing, mechanic cultivation, mulching, transplanting, flaming, ect.” (as cited in Gomiero et al., 2011).  Since organic agriculture methods do not involve the use of chemicals for weed control it helps keep harmful chemicals from entering the land in which the crops grow and in turn offers environmentally friendly methods of weed control.

Pest control is another factor that farmers must take in account in managing their crops.  Again, solutions for pest control in conventional farming involve the use of chemicals.  Crops are treated with chemical pesticides to kill pests that would otherwise cause damage to the crops.  Kabaru & Gichia (2001) report that, synthetic pesticides have been the primary solution for pest control for around the last 50 years (as cited in Shrivastava et al., 2010).  Pesticides do not distinguish between the species of pests on farm land that harmful to crops and the natural enemies of those pests that damage crops (Pimental et al., 1992, 1997; Kruess & Tscharntke, 1994; Pimental, 1997; Barbosa, 2003; Altieri & Nicholls, 2004; Perfecto et al., 2004; Bianchi et al., 2006; Crowder et al., 2010) (as cited in Gomiero et al., 2011).  Solutions to pest control in organic agriculture without the use of pesticides are prevention and biological control (Shrivastava et al., 2010).  In organic agriculture, there are organic pesticides that are allowed in the treatment of crops to eliminate pests (Shrivastava et al., 2010).    Shrivastastava et al. (2010) asserts that the majority of organic pesticides “have low residual activity” but does also concede that the use of the approved organic pesticides is still controversial and debated over whether or not they are truly environmentally safe.   Unfortunately, it cannot be said with complete assurance that every product on the grocery store shelves has not be subjected to any kind of pesticide; however, in organic agriculture pesticides are not heavily relied upon nor are they the only means of pest control.

Fertilizers are used as an aid for crops.  Fertilizers are meant to help plants grow bigger and produce more and better results than a plant would on its own.  In Araujo & Melo (2010), it is reported that conventional farming uses synthetic, or chemical, fertilizers.  Chemical fertilizers are said to lead to degraded soil and increases the toxicity of the soil (Araujo & Melo, 2010).  Conventional agriculture depends on chemical solutions for weed control, pest control, and for the purpose of growing food better all at the expense of the environment of the lands in which the farming is done.  Organic agriculture uses organic fertilizers which promote sustainability (Araujo & Melo, 2010).  There are different practices for fertilizing the soil for crop growth in organic farming.  Employing practices such as “crop rotation, intercropping, polyculture, covering crops and mulching” (Araujo & Melo, 2010) are all organic means of fertilization without using synthetic fertilizers.  Although organic farming may permit some usage of organic pesticides, it uses far less chemicals for weed control and fertilizing than does conventional farming.  The significantly higher usage of chemicals on conventional farming lands leads to increased amounts of chemicals into the environment.  These chemicals pollute the land and are not sucked back up after using the chemicals, but are instead left in the ground.  Continued purchases of inorganic foods are an indirect way to promote the continued use of the chemicals that infect the environment.  A well known and terrible effect of chemical fertilizer usage is the “dead zone” of the Gulf of Mexico, which is the result of chemical usage in the “corn-belt corn production” (Pimentel et al., 2005). Organic farming does not rely on chemical usage like conventional farming.  With the high usage of chemicals in conventional farming it is alarming that so little attention is given to that fact, and it is frightening that conventional farming foods are so prevalent in food selections in stores.  By choosing organic foods, people can choose not to support the use of so many chemicals and instead support the health of the environment.  Organic farming techniques go beyond the scope of plant based foods and into more natural and less environmentally devastating way to raise animals for consumer consumption as well.

Animal agriculture presents different issues that can cause environmental stress.  In animal agriculture, animals are raised for eventual consumer consumption.  Conventional farming emphasizes animal management procedures that produce high output over environmental friendly procedures (Putting Meat, n.d.).  Organic animal agriculture raises animals in drastically different ways than conventional.  When we go through the stores, beef, pork, and chicken are the most prominent forms of meats available for purchase.  In conventional farming, the use of confined animal feeding operations, CAFOs, are implemented to help provide high output (Jing et al., 2010).  Waste lagoons are common on the CAFOs; waste lagoons are essentially small ponds that contain waste from the animals housed on the CAFOs (Jing et al., 2010; Starmer, n.d.).  Animals cannot be made to quit ridding themselves of their waste; it is a natural process that takes place regardless of what anyone does.  Since organic farming does not implement waste lagoons, it makes sense to move away from conventional farming and toward organic.  Organic animal farming provides open pastures for cattle, allowing cattle to roam over a large area in which waste can be absorbed by the land or even used as fertilizer.  Either way, organic farming keeps a far smaller number of animals per area of land where conventional animal farming keeps many animals in confined spaces.

Since animals in CAFOs are kept in such close quarters, measures need to be taken in order to help prevent the spread of diseases.  Antibiotics used in swine CAFOs are used in large amounts and lead to antibiotic resistant strands of infectious microbial (Chen et al., 2010).  Chen et al. (2010) reports that through the waste lagoons, adverse effects are created by environmental pollution of the resistant strands of microbial which can transfer to animals within the area.  Along with antibiotics, growth hormones may be used as well; some of these substances used in poultry contain arsenic (They Eat, 2006).  Again, as with the other pollutions that result from animal waste, the arsenic present in runoff at the facilities that use the substances the arsenic can pollute water sources (They Eat, 2006).  The conventional animal agriculture management techniques are appalling.  Even if regulations were constructed and enforced to reduce the possibility of pollutants, there will still be the risk of contamination of the environment until conventional animal agriculture ceases to exist and organic agriculture takes center stage.   Feed provided for animals raised in non-organic practices have environmental impacts as well.

Feed farms in conventional farming, like at cattle feed farms, provide large amounts of corn in the feed provided for the animals (Woolf, 2007).  The corn is actually not part of a healthy diet for the cattle and is conventionally grown corn (Woolf, 2007), which loops back to all the issues of conventionally grown crops that are discussed in previous paragraphs.  In order for the animals to be considered organically raised, they must be fed a 100% organic diet (Organic Livestock, 2004).  Conventionally raised animals cause pollutions to the environment through their care in every aspect while organically raised animals are raised through more natural processes and do not contribute to polluting the environment.    From chemicals to animals, there is plenty to be alarmed about within the subject of crops; the different characteristics of crop treatment can be an issue of importance for the environment as well.

Different farming methods can have different results on the soil in which crops are planted.  The differences that occur between organic farming methods and conventional farming methods are substantial and should not be ignored.  Conventional farming methods include the use of chemicals through fertilizers and pesticides; due to the extensive use of these chemicals, the result has been raised toxicity levels of the soils exposed to the chemicals and has caused the degradation of the soils (Araujo & Melo, 2010).  Those pollutants that conventional farming employs are polluting the environment and ruining the soil they are used on, which can only further the reliance that conventional farming has on its chemicals.  The differences in organic and conventional farming include more than the use of chemicals.  The non-chemical methods implemented in organic farming promote soil fertility (Broad & Cavanagh, 2012), the opposite of conventional farming.  The healthier soil in organic farming can use water more efficiently than soil in conventional farming (Gomiero et al., 2011).  Conventional farming cannot even sustain its own soil, and with the poor soil requires more water than organic farming.  Organic practices actually help improve soil conditions, which would seem to be a much more desirable outcome than the results provided by conventional farming.  Organic foods may cost more in the stores, but conventional farming certainly runs high costs for the environment.  Some risks or consequences may not be quite as obvious.

Another of the many differences between organic farming and conventional farming is the inclusion or restriction of the use of GMs.  GM stands for genetically modified, and GM plants are those that have been either bioengineered or genetically engineered, or have had both changes made as defined by Perr (2004) (as cited in Singh et. al., 2006).  It isn’t that all conventional farming grows GM crops, but there are no restrictions to using GM crops.  In organic farming, however, the use of GM crops is prohibited (Gomiero et al., 2011).  Although at first glance it may seem that GM foods actually offer great benefits as listed in Singh et. al. (2006), there are risks to the use of GM foods that are known and perhaps some still unknown (Singh et. al., 2006).  GM crops can be altered so they do not need pesticides, but as pests build a tolerance to the plant’s new changes, the use of pesticides or more alterations will again be needed (Singh et. al., 2006).  Any conventional farming that uses GM crops will be stuck in a cycle in which the outcome can only be negative toward the environment or unknown.  Organic crops offer natural solutions such as mentioned in Broad & Cavanagh (2012), since farmers use seeds that have been “in-bred”, making it so the seeds grow well within the local ecosystem the parent plants were a part of and in the soils those parent plants grew.  Organic crops are unaltered crops that can be cultivated naturally to work with the environment making them superior when keeping the environment in mind.  GM crops also pose possible danger to the diversity of plants (Balezentiene, 2011).

Cross pollination and accidental seeding, through means such as transportation of seed, can cause GM crops to grow or cross with other plants (Craig et. al., 2008) (Singh et. al., 2006).  With unknown long term affects of the GM alterations, limiting crops to only organic origins will help prevent any potential adverse affects on the environment.  As stated in Balezentiene (2011), conventional farming has had a negative influence on the “floristic diversity” of the areas surrounding such farms.  Balezentiene (2011) reports that organic farming is helpful to surrounding plant life due to the methods used in organic farming.  The results are in for organic farming, but still pending for GM crops that are allowable in conventional farming.  With so many things to consider between organic foods and conventionally farmed and raised foods, organic continuously comes out on top as a better choice for the environment.

People must speak out with a unified voice, as consumers who want organic foods to be the prevalent choices in stores to promote a healthy environment.  Right now in the market place, organic foods are no doubt more expensive than there conventional farmed counterparts, but that is because there are many fewer organic farms than conventional farms, so the prices must be higher in order to keep up with the supply.  If organic farming becomes the prevalent form of farming, or better yet the only way of farming, the supply for organic foods will be higher and thus allow the prices of organic foods to be lowered.  Right now, chemicals make their way through the environment, animals crowd at feed factories, and genetically altered crops are being made and grown.  Right now choices are being made in stores.  Right now, make the right choice for the environment and choose organic.

References

Araújo, A. S. F. de, Melo, W. J. de..  (2010, November).  Soil microbial biomass in organic farming system.  Biomassa microbiana do solo em sistemas orgânicos.  Ciência Rural, 40(11), 2419-2426.

Balezentiene, L..  (2011).  Alpha-Diversity of Differently Managed Agro-Ecosystems Assessed at a Habitat Scale.  Polish Journal of Environmental Studies,  20(6), 1387-1394.

Broad, R., Cavanagh, J..  (2012).  CAN DANILO ATILANO FEED THE WORLD?   Earth Island Journal, 26(4), 56-60.

Craig, W., Tepfer, M., Degrassi, G., Ripandelli, D.. (2008, January)  An overview of general features of risk assessments of genetically modified crops.  Euphytica International Journal of Plant Breeding, 164, 853-880. doi 10.1007/s10681-007-9643-8

Gomiero, T., Pimentel, D., Paoletti, M. G..  (2011, January-April).  Environmental Impact of Different Agricultural Management Practices: Conventional vs. Organic Agriculture.  Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences, 30(1/2), 95-124.

Jing C., Michel Jr., F. C., Sreevatsan, S., Morrison, M., Zhongtang Y..  (2010, October). Occurrence and Persistence of Erythromycin Resistance Genes ( erm) and Tetracycline Resistance Genes ( tet) in Waste Treatment Systems on Swine Farms. Microbial Ecology, 60(3), 479-486.

Mortensen, D. A., Egan, J. F., Maxwell, B. D., Ryan, M. R., Smith, R. G..  (2012, January).  Navigating a Critical Juncture for Sustainable Weed Management.  BioScience, 62(1), p75-84.

Organic Livestock Workbook. A Guide to Sustainable and Allowed Practices.  (2004). National Center for Appropriate Technology.  Retrieved from http://www.co.marin.ca.us/depts/AG/Main/PDFsForOrganicAgAndMOCA/livestockworkbook.pdf

Pimentel, D., Hepperly, P.,Hanson, J., Seidel, R., Douds, D..  (2005, July). Organic and Conventional Farming Systems: Environmental and Economic Issues.  Report 05-1, http://ecommons.cornell.edu/bitstream/1813/2101/1/pimentel_report_05-1.pdf.

Putting Meat on the Table: Industrial Farm Animal Production in America. (n.d.).  A Report of the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production.  Retrieved from http://www.ncifap.org/_images/PCIFAPFin.pdf

Shrivastava, G., Rogers, M., Wszelaki, A., Panthee, D. R., Feng C..  (2010, April/March). Plant Volatiles-based Insect Pest Management in Organic Farming. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences, 29(2), 123-133.

Singh, O. V., Ghai, S., Paul, D., Jain, R. K.. (2006, April). Genetically modified crops: success, safety assessment, and public concern.  Appl Microbiol Biotechnol, 71, 598-607.  doi 10.1007/s00253-006-0449-8

Starmer, E..  (n.d.).  Environmental and Health Problems in Livestock Production: Pollution in the Food System.  The Agribusiness Accountability Initiative Leveling The Field, Issue Brief 2, 1-8.  Retrieved from http://www.ase.tufts.edu/gdae/Pubs/rp/AAI_Issue_Brief_2_1.pdf

 They Eat What? The Reality of Feed at Animal Factories.  (2006, August).  Union of Concerned Scientists.  Retrieved from http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/science_and_impacts/impacts_industrial_agriculture/they-eat-what-the-reality-of.html

Woolf, A., Ellis, C., Cheney, I., Mosaic Films. (2007). King Corn.  USA

Essay 3 Revision – Paper or Plastic: How about neither?

“Paper or Plastic?” It’s a simple question, but one that brings a whole pile of environmental controversy with it. Which is better for the environment? What is more practical? The best solution is to not have to decide between them at all. The movement to use reusable bags that are brought back to the store again and again has caught fire but needs help to really take off. This is not a problem that can be put off. It needs to be addressed and we have the technology to easily eliminate the problem. Although convenience may be sacrificed, all shoppers should use reusable grocery bags because plastic bags use precious resources, poison the environment, and harm wildlife.

Between 500 and 1,500 billion plastic shopping bags are used worldwide every year (Clapp, 2009). That’s 15,000 to 45,000 per second! 100 billion are used in the United States alone (3,000 a second). These massive quantities of bags require 12 million barrels of oil to create just the bags for the United States.  That much oil could provide all the power needed by Fairbanks for 5 years! This is an unacceptable waste of resources. An argument could be made that plastic is recyclable and this is true, but plastic film is one of the least desirable materials to recycle. Less than 5% of bags are recycled, the rest go to landfills and the environment (Clapp, 2009).

Whether in the environment or the landfill, the bags take up to 1,000 years to break down, and when they do breakdown, it isn’t a good degradation. Instead of biodegrading, they go through a process called photodegradation. This means they break down to smaller pieces that are more dangerous for wildlife (Clapp, 2009). These tiny pieces infiltrate everything from the soil to the streams to the rivers to the oceans. When 60-80% of marine debris is plastic-based, there is no place for animals to hide. A whole plastic bag can harm a fish in a dramatic way by trapping or suffocating it. After photodegration, the fish can ingest many small pieces of plastic. These toxic plastics work their way up the food chain, and the concentration of plastic pollution increases as more waste is eaten by bigger fish. Eventually, these plastics will reach humans, and their effects on humans are not completely understood. The material of these bags was chosen for cheapness and strength, not environmental toxicity. These subtle hazards are far more deadly than the obvious ones.

Wildlife being harmed by plastics is not an isolated problem. Up to 86% of all sea turtles are affected by plastic debris due to the anatomy of their esophagus. They have a valve that allows the debris in but doesn’t let it out. Other animals have similarly amazingly high cases of plastic poisoning and damage. Plastic bags look very different underwater and are often mistaken for food sources such as jellyfish. When the turtle or fish goes for a meal it can be suffocated, or it can swallow the plastic. The plastic materials then sits in the stomach of the animal for years, taking up space that is needed for real food and nutrients.

So what are some solutions? Many communities worldwide are beginning steps to outlaw plastic bags; plastic bag manufactures are fighting back with biodegradable bags. Studies have shown though that these bags can take up to 3 years to decompose in the ocean (Müller, 2012). That is an unacceptable length of time. The best solution involves bags that don’t need to be disposed of at all. Reusable bags can be used hundreds of times, and every time a plastic bag would be thrown away, the reusable bag saves that oil, that ocean, that turtle. Even with reusable bags there is a difference in materials that should be used. Cotton bags are not the best choice. Cotton is a very destructive crop to grow and harvest. Hemp is a much better alternative than cotton. Hemp is very basic and easy to grow with little pesticides (Gibson, 2008). A hemp bag has little effect on the environment when it is made and when in use. The best part is after a hemp bag has been worn out, it will readily decompose.

By switching to reusable bags, (preferably hemp) every shopper can make a difference in the health of the environment and its inhabitants. The raw materials that are wasted on bags can be put to better uses and create wealth. The environment will benefit greatly from the stop of plastic debris pollution, and all the creatures of the world will profit. Just by using a reusable bag over and over, every shopper can save the world.

 

References

Clapp, J., & Swanston, L. (2009). Doing away with plastic shopping bags: international patterns of norm emergence and policy implementation. Environmental Politics, 18(3), 315-332. doi:10.1080/09644010902823717

Gibson, K. (2008). The Bag Idea. Journal Of Industrial Hemp, 13(1), 73-77. doi:10.1080/15377880801898741

Müller, C., Townsend, K., & Matschullat, J. (2012). Experimental degradation of polymer shopping bags (standard and degradable plastic, and biodegradable) in the gastrointestinal fluids of sea turtles. Science Of The Total Environment, 416464-467. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.10.069

Essay 2 Book Review Revision – Cradle to Cradle: Clean Creation and Clean Destruction

Most people want to help protect and preserve the environment. There are many views on how to best do this, and most focus on reducing use of natural materials and recycling what can be saved. While the idea is admirable, these actions can cause more harm than good. Recycling materials that were not designed to be recycled leads to the use of hazardous materials in the process and less value in the end product. Although Cradle to Cradle by William McDonough and Micheal Braungart defies current environmental thinking, it is an eye-opening book because it reveals the incorrect policies of the past, the fatal flaws of the present generation, and improved strategies for the future.

In the past, industry was purely driven by profit and the bottom line, but times have changed. The industrial revolution was a dirty time of mass production and environmental sacrifice (McDonough & Braungart, 2003, p. 30). This lead to an environment polluted by byproducts and the creation of products that were designed to be cheap to make. However, this idea of cheap production does not take into account the environmental and social cost of these dangerous products. When these costs are considered, the flaws in the former way of thinking become apparent. The unimaginable amounts of toxic byproducts and the amount of money invested in useless waste are huge costs that hurt industry and the environment. A system that feeds off of the Earth without giving anything in return goes against all of nature and can only lead to destruction.

The present social environment focuses on the model of reduce, reuse, recycle, and regulate. Reducing the amount of products used and thus the waste and toxins created by those products does not help fix the problem; it just puts off the inevitable outcome, a barren, toxic Earth devoid of resources. Reusing products also helps in the short run, but fails to address the real problems. Even after reusing a product it still is discarded and those valuable materials are lost. Recycling tries to address this problem of lost materials. In reality, materials are still lost as most recycling is actually down-cycling; where a material is recovered in a less valuable state. Water bottles are melted down but the plastics are degraded in the process. These cannot be used for bottles again, but have to be used as artificial turf or other products that can be made with weaker materials. Also, the byproducts of recycling can be much worse than the byproducts of the original production. The harsh chemicals and processes can release more toxins than if the product was just thrown away (McDonough & Braungart, 2003, p. 56). These chemicals and other byproducts released by the production and recycling have been released in such quantities that it required governmental regulation of the environmental effects of industry. The constant battle between environmentalists and industry has created a polarized view; environmental considerations directly fight profit and success. This could not be further from the truth. Factories made to be pleasant to work in and environmentally friendly have shown an ability to entice workers and save millions of dollars. Ford Motor Company has redesigned its factories with the help of input from the authors. In one particular instance, they saved over 50 million dollars just from using environmentally helpful sewer systems. As McDonough and Braungart point out, a balanced view that considers all issues of economy, equity and ecology is needed (McDonough & Braungart, 2003, p. 150). If even one of these issues is valued more than the others than the whole decision-making process is flawed and any solutions will be invalid, useless, and harmful.

However, if a proper system is used to come to logical and truly low cost processes, then real change and improvement can be made. A five step process to create better products is presented, which includes: getting rid of known environmental culprits, following informed personal preferences, creating a list of categorized products by environmental impact, using the list to redesign products using safer materials, and finally completely reinventing the product (McDonough & Braungart, 2003, p. 165). The end result is not an improved product with a reduced impact, but a totally new product designed from the beginning to have minimal impact and be easily broken down. The gradual scale of this process allows for companies to start improving their products now and work up to full scale reinvention of manufacturing. Optimizing the materials used can have major positive improvements of both economic and environmental considerations. By designing with the end of a product’s lifespan in mind products can become truly waste-free. The authors constantly stress the difference between biological nutrients and technical nutrients. These two separate metabolisms – the technical material cycle and the biological cycle – can be used in designs to create products with zero waste, and some that even produce positive byproducts (McDonough & Braungart, 2003, p. 103). Shoes can be designed with biodegradable soles and plastic uppers that separate for disposal. The soles are biodegradable and can be returned to the biological cycle with no waste or toxicity. The plastic uppers can be up-cycled into new shoes or better products because of the pure plastic not degraded by afterthought recycling. By utilizing the nutrient cycles separately the authors can maximize usefulness of the product’s materials and minimize environmental impact. These ideals are just the start to a world vision of closed circle production and consumer loops, where the waste of one process becomes nutrients for the next process.

These changes will not occur overnight, Cradle to Cradle outlines how the needed changes can be made gradually and productively. The authors present their arguments, the facts, their sources, and their solutions in a very organized and effective manner. With the help and consul of McDonough and Braungart we can save our planet. We need to not just work on minimizing or avoiding or reducing waste (McDonough & Braungart, 2003, p. 67). We need to remove waste from the equation completely, so that waste ceases to exist. Just as this book is dedicated to “The children of all species,” we need to focus on solutions that will benefit the children for all time.

 

Reference

McDonough, W., & Braungart, M. (2003). Cradle to cradle, remaking the way we make things. New York: North Point Pr.

Essay 1 Revision – Nuclear Power: Is It Really All That Bad?

On March 11^th 2011, a massive earthquake and tsunami struck Japan. The first reports focused on the waves’ damage to city after city and town after town. Then all reports focused on one place, Fukushima. What was special about this town? Did many people live there? No, it was a coastal town with the same damage as every other fishing community. The only difference was that a couple of water pumps were damaged. The problem was that these pumps cooled a nuclear power plant. The lack of cooling started a chain of events resulting in explosions and spreading radiation. These events caused considerable discussion and questioning of the safety of nuclear power. This questioning is not going to help the environment. The problems facing the world today are numerous: humans are running out of oil sources, greenhouse gases are changing our climate and there are few ready alternative sources of power available. Humankind, for the most part, has done nothing to curb the effects of global warming. We are waiting for an easy way out while burning coal and oil to power our homes. Of course we can’t just stop making electricity and wait for a perfect energy source. We don’t have the time. However, there is a technology that is developed and ready to be used, that can produce massive amounts of power and no uncontrolled pollution. The human race cannot stand around waiting for a new energy solution to appear, we must use the nuclear technology available now to create clean energy today. Although nuclear power is often viewed as dangerous, it causes more good than harm because of its efficiency, cleanliness and safety.

Efficiency is the key to any good power source and nuclear energy has considerable advantages over other power sources. Every year the United States burns 1 billion tons of coal to make electricity.  Sixty-thousand tons of Uranium would create the same amount of energy; a small fifty gram Uranium pellet puts off the same amount of energy as 1780 pounds of coal (Klimas, Anderson & Azadian, 2006). Instead of using a solid chunk of coal the size of a refrigerator, two pieces of uranium the size of a pair of dice can be used. The ease at which this can be dug up and transported can make a huge difference in efficiency of the fuel. Only one truck is needed to drive the fuel to the power plant instead of a mile-long train. The less fuel used lowers the amount of work and energy going into getting the fuel. Although Uranium is more expensive than coal, the plant needs much less; each kilowatt-hour created by nuclear power (1.76 cents/per kilowatt-hour) is cheaper than coal (2.21 cents/per kilowatt-hour) (Klimas, Anderson & Azadian, 2006). The fuel supply is a huge factor to consider when selecting a power plant. Oil and coal are running out. Uranium is still easily mined and will continue to be for years after oil and coal mines have dried up. Also, some reactors are set up to recycle used nuclear fuel and create more fuel (Yangco, 1996). Let’s see a coal plant do that: burn 50 tons of coal and end up with 60 tons. This process is not science fiction and can stretch the use of the fuel many times. This efficiency is a solid advantage nuclear power has over other forms of alternative energy. Unlike solar or wind, a nuclear plant can provide vast amounts of constant, reliable energy. They are also exempt from many kinds of fuel shortages. Uranium is evenly distributed around the globe so a conflict in the Middle East will not affect energy prices here (Yangco, 1996).

The biggest advantage for the environment over conventional energy plants is that a nuclear power plant puts out no pollution during operation (Clyde, Schleier-Smith & Tseng, 1996). No air pollution equals no gases released into atmosphere equals no contributing to global warming. This is much different from the smoke belching coal plants that produce 40% of the CO² released by the US, and that cause endless health problems (Godin, 2011). The massive amounts of dangerous gases released are uncontrollable and deadly. Air pollutants can never be controlled while radioactive waste can be put in containers and stored. Coal plant air pollution kills 1,000,000 people every year. The nuclear plant radiation from Chernobyl is expected to cause early death in about 4,000 people, (Godin, 2011) but that was an accident, not routine operation. The accident in Japan was a small release that had nowhere near the potential for killing compared to Chernobyl. The only time people are hurt by nuclear power is when something goes wrong. Coal pollution kills when everything goes right.

Nuclear power has a different kind of pollution: radiation. The disaster in Japan and the past disasters of 3 Mile Island and Chernobyl created massive amounts of fear in the general public. Anything that can silently penetrate walls and produce cancer, radiation sickness, and death is scary. Nuclear waste will continue to give off radiation for thousands of years. However, radiation is not understood well by the general public. Radiation is normal. Two of the three disasters mentioned really didn’t cause much human damage. At 3 Mile Island some people received 0.3% more radiation than normal (Yangco, 1996). The Japanese incident is still too recent to see health trends and Chernobyl was not actually a meltdown, it was an explosion and fire caused by the mishandling of chemicals and steam, not run away nuclear reactions. Even after releasing huge amounts of radiation Chernobyl did not kill many people when compared to the ongoing deaths from coal. Something that is not widely known is that radiation is everywhere, from bricks to fire. Everyday objects give off small amounts of reaction, while fires release natural radiation from those same materials. Taking a plane trip gives your body a dose of radiation from outer space. These are all normal and non-dangerous exposures to radiation. More radiation is released burning coal then from a nuclear power plant, even one with a leak (Klimas, Anderson & Azadian, 2006)!

I can only hope that nuclear power production does not get stifled by the fears. This form of clean energy has to be utilized if we as humans want to keep our way of life. The path humanity is on — one of dwindling of fossil fuels and a planet that is inhospitable — is unacceptable and dramatic action needs to be taken soon. Nuclear power may not be the final answer to our problems, but it can fill in and power the world until better technology is discovered. A look at the efficiency, cleanliness, and safety of nuclear power reveals a power source that has too much positive potential for the environment and our future for us to ignore.

References

Clyde, J., Schleier-Smith, J., & Tseng, G. (1996, October 28). Nuclear energy. Retrieved from http://library.thinkquest.org/3471/nuclear_energy_body.html

Godin, S. (2011, March 13). Deaths per twh by energy source. Retrieved from http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html

Klimas, R., Anderson, D., & Azadian, N. (2006, December 13). Nuclear power pros and cons. Retrieved from http://www.eng.fsu.edu/~azadini/group/website/

Yangco, R. (1996, June 06). The pros and cons of nuclear energy. Retrieved from http://members.tripod.com/funk_phenomenon/nuclear/procon.htm

Research Part 5 Final Draft: The Dark Side of Hydroelectric Dams

The Dark Side of Hydroelectric Dams

The third longest river in the world is also the longest river in Asia. The ancient Yangtze River begins its life high upon the Tibetan Plateau in Western China. The spark of its life is derived from glacial runoff. This runoff is joined by small streams and creeks as it descends from its lofty Tibetan perch. The river gains volume and ferocity as it tumbles and roils towards China’s east coast. As the river nears the coast, it splinters apart to form the capillaries of the Yangtze River Delta. For centuries, this unrelenting river etched its pathway unmolested across China, splitting the country in two. However, in 2006 the completion of the Three Gorges Dam forever changed the ecology, environment, and destiny of the river. The Yangtze is not alone. According to an article by David Biello (2009) called “Dam Building Boom: Path to Clean Energy,” the world has as many as 48,000 hydroelectric dams. These dams provide electricity to millions of people. According to Mara Hvistendahl’s article (2008) called “China’s Three Gorges Dam: An Environmental Catastrophe,” the Three Gorges Dam alone will generate 18,000 megawatts of electricity. That is eight times the amount of electricity generated by the America’s Hoover Dam. However, this green source of energy has a dark side. Although hydroelectric dams are believed to provide a relatively clean source of electricity, they cause an increase in greenhouse gases because flooding destroys carbon dioxide filtering vegetation and forests, decomposing organic material releases methane and stored carbon dioxide into the water, and the dam’s turbines release these gasses into the atmosphere.

Dams have a very simple yet extremely functional design. Simply build a wall across a river and effectively stop it in its tracks. Provide a pathway for the water to escape to the other side of the dam. This pathway is called a penstock. The penstock is filled from near the base of the dam thereby pulling water from near the bottom of the reservoir. At the end of the penstock the water enters a large chamber that houses the blades of the turbines. The water spins the blades of the turbines which generates the electricity. Once the water has passed the turbine blades it is spat out the back side of the dam where it is free to continue its journey downstream. When fish enter the turbine system the outcome is nearly always fatal for the fish (Carr 2012, Ferguson 2011, Keefer 2010). The amount of electricity generated depends on how much water is let through the penstock. On days where there is little electricity needed then only a little water is let through. On days where much more electricity is needed then more water can be let through. Dams will also open the penstocks fully to drain large amounts of water to accommodate floodwater during rainy seasons and during spring snow thawing.

However, by placing a dam in the river water begins to build up on the upriver side. Often a large lake will be formed. These lakes are called reservoirs. The reservoir can be massive. This flooding alone often has serious consequences for people. The flooding from the Three Gorges Dam created a lake that was so large it displaced nearly 1.3 million people. Deep beneath this lake rests the skeletal remains of a forest. This forest was once thriving, absorbing carbon dioxide to grow and releasing precious oxygen as a result. The lake that developed behind the Three Gorges Dam covers 468 square miles of land that once grew vegetation and forests. Imagine how much forested land has been destroyed by the flooding behind the world’s 48,000 hydroelectric dams. There are also thousands of acres of forested land that must be cleared to resettle the 1.3 million displaced residents. A dam in the Nile River drainage displaced nearly 50,000 residents (Bosshard 2009). Also, land must be cleared for the electrical transmission lines and other necessary dam projects.

Once the land behind a hydroelectric dam has been flooded, and the forests and vegetation are all dead, the biological material begins to decompose deep below the surface of the lake. The dead biological material such as the trees, plant and animal matter is attacked by microscopic bacteria. Some bacteria called aerobic bacteria need oxygen to live as they begin to break down the plant and animal matter (Demarty 2011). As these bacteria live, they release carbon dioxide. Other bacteria, called anaerobic bacteria, do not need oxygen to live. As these bacteria break down the animal and plant matter, they release a toxic combination of carbon dioxide and methane gas. This gas is released into the surrounding water by the bacteria where it then resides until it can be released into the atmosphere. The flooding caused by the dam is not the only source of this organic material. The dam also works like a net and water filter. Any plant or animal matter that is carried by the river from further upstream is stopped by the dam. Trees, branches, driftwood, and animal matter are all trapped behind the dam. This material sinks to the bottom of the lake where it will also decompose. Therefore, dams create a continual source of decomposing material which will release greenhouse gases. The production of greenhouse gases has been found to increase in dam reservoirs that are located in tropical climates.

Some of the gas is oxidized in the water to form carbon dioxide which is released at the surface of the lake by the gentle agitating motion of the waves and wind (Roland 2010). However, most of the methane gas remains suspended in the deep water. As the dam releases water through the penstock the water becomes highly agitated by the movement. The spinning of the turbines, and eventually the turmoil caused by spilling from the down river side of the dam will cause most of the greenhouse gases to be released. The rest of the greenhouse gases will be released from the water as it continues its journey downstream. According to a report by International Rivers Network (2012) called “Frequently Asked Questions: Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Dams,” as much as 104 million metric tons of methane gas will annually be released by the large dams of the world. This release of methane gas is responsible for as much as 4% of humankind’s warming impact on the planet. Methane gas in the atmosphere traps more heat than carbon dioxide. The International Rivers Network (2012) report states that dams are responsible for 23% of the world’s methane gas production. According to International Rivers Network (2012), hydroelectric dams actually are less environmentally-friendly than fossil fuel burning facilities when generating the same amount of electricity:

“Large hydropower reservoirs in the tropics can have a higher global warming impact per kilowatt hour generated than fossil fuels, including coal.” (International River Network 2012)

There are some methods to curb the production of greenhouse gases in dam reservoirs. Prior to the flooding of a proposed dam reservoir area it is possible to log off forested areas to cut down on the volume of organic material that will be covered with water. This is by no means a cure all. It would be impossible to fully remove all material from a proposed flood zone. The sheer volume would be incomprehensible. However, the removal of large timber would cut down on a large proportion of organic material. When the Three Gorges Dam reservoir flooded it covered numerous villages, cities and towns. This flooding added inorganic trash and material to the reservoir’s collection of decomposing sediment. Additional problems arise when dam building is proposed in tropical climates such as Brazil where a large scale dam on the Amazon River is proposed. The dam, named The Bella Monte, would be the third largest hydroelectric dam in the world. The flooding that would ensue from the construction of this dam could flood large portions of pristine Amazon rainforest. This flooding would release a catastrophic volume of methane gas into the atmosphere.

In addition to releasing vast amounts of toxic greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, dams have other effects on the environment (Grahm-Rowe 2005, Marriot 2010, Mourad 2011) around them. Up river flooding can cause serious seasonal flooding of agricultural and natural wetlands. The flooding of agricultural lands not only affects those that depend on agriculture but this flooding also releases toxic pesticides and poisons into the river water. Flooding natural wetland ecosystems with many times the normal amount of water can destroy these delicate ecosystems. Many natural wetlands are destroyed and cannot ever recover from the flooding. Continuious flooding of a seasonally flooded region upsets breeding, spawning, and migratory schedules of numerous species of aquatic wetland indigenous creatures. An unknown number of delicate and endangered species can be wiped out by this flooding (Lopez-Pujol and Ming-Xun 2009). Dams also inhibit migrations of keystone fish species such as salmon. The loss of salmon and salmon habitat can impact hundreds of species of birds, fish and mammals that rely on salmon as a food source (Welch 2008). The Three Gorges Dam also threatens endangered species such as the Yangtze Alligator and the Yangtze Freshwater Dolphin. These species are found nowhere else in the world. Hydroelectric dams also increase the chances of landslides upstream of the dam where the reservoir erodes riverbanks. Large scale land slides into reservoirs have often caused large waves that flood river side villages leaving death and destruction in their wake. Cities that were destroyed by the Three Gorges Dam reservoir, released and unknown amount of human sewage, toxic waste, petroleum products and trash into the water system. These underwater ghost cities will undoubtedly pollute the Yangtze for generations to come.

Although hydroelectric dams were once thought to be the best source of electricity, new studies have proven that hydroelectric dams are no better, and in some cases a worse method of generating electricity. Hydroelectric dams can produce stunning amounts electricity. However, the release of methane and other greenhouse gases from hydroelectric dam reservoirs, especially those in tropical climates can in fact make hydroelectric dams less efficient than fossil fuel electric facilities that produce similar amounts of electricity. Methane production in reservoirs can be cut down by the removal of plant and animal matter from proposed dam reservoir areas prior to flooding however it cannot be eliminated completely. Dam reservoirs will always continue to produce greenhouse gases. As the human race continues to grow and expand into previously untouched wilderness the need for more and more electricity generating facilities will also grow. The damming and building of hydroelectric dams will continue and the subsequent production of greenhouse gases will also increase. Not only do humans increase greenhouse gases by building hydroelectric dams, but humans also inadvertently decrease the planet’s ability to filter carbon dioxide form the atmosphere by killing the vegetation in a proposed reservoir flood area. With today’s technology it is no obvious better or worse method for producing electricity. Each need must be analyzed and examined to determine the best method of electrical production whether it be a fossil fuel burning facility or a hydroelectric dam or a nuclear power plant. It is up to humankind to determine the appropriate method of generating electricity for a certain area. There may never be a single environmentally sound method of electricity generation. Every method of electrical generation has downsides. The safest choice is for every single person to attempt to cut down on unnecessary use of electricity. Every person can lead by example and cut down on unnecessary use of electricity. Turning off lights after leaving a room, unplugging unused electrical appliances when not in use because many appliances contain clocks which are continuously drawing current. It is cutting down on the small uses of electricity that can add up to save large volumes of power. By cutting down on the need for electricity, the need for large scale hydroelectric dams can be cut down. This cutback on electricity is the best method currently available to humans to keep planet Earth green.

References

Biello, David. “The Dam Building Boom: Right Path to Clean Energy” Yale Environment 360. Feb 23, 2009 http://e360.yale.edu/feature/the_dam_building_boom_right_path_to_clean_energy/2119/>.

Bosshard, Peter, “China Dams the World” World Policy Institute 26, no 4 (2009) http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.uaf.edu/ehost/detail?vid=25&hid=14&sid=c23df883-04cf-428f-be65-ba49a40e683b%40sessionmgr15&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=aph&AN=46730738

 

Carr, J.W. and F.G. Whorisky “Migration of Silver American Eels past a Hydroelectric Dam and Through A Coastal Zone” Fisheries Management and Ecology 15, no 5/6 (2008) 393-400. http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.uaf.edu/ehost/detail?vid=25&hid=14&sid=c23df883-04cf-428f-be65-8a49a40e683b%40sessionmgr15&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=aph&AN=34883128

 

Demarty, M and J. Bastien, “GHG Emissions from Hydroelectric Reservoirs in Tropical and Equatorial Regions: Review of 20 Years of CH4 Emission Measurements,” Energy Policy 34, no. 7 (2011): 4197-4206. http://dx.doi.org.proxy.library.uaf.edu/10.1016/j.bbr.2011.03.031

 

Ferguson, John W et al, “Potential Effects of Dams on Migratory Fish in the Mekong River: Lessons from Salmon in the Fraser and Columbia Rivers” Environmental Management 47 (2011) 141-159. http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.uaf.edu/ehost/detail?sid=c23df883-04cf-428f-be65-8a49a40e683b%40sessionmgr15&vid=22&hid=14

 

Grahm-Rowe, Duncan. “Hydroelectric Power’s Dirty Secret.” New Scientist. Feb 24, 2005 <httrp://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7046-hydroelectric-powers-dirty-secret-revealed.html>.

 

Hvistendahl, Mara. “China’s Three Gorges Dam : An Environmental Catastrophe.” Scientific American. 3 Feb. 2012. 25 Mar. 2008 International Rivers Network. 3 Feb. 2012. < http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=chinas-three-gorges-dam-disaster&gt;

 

International Rivers Network. 3 Feb. 2012. International Rivers Network. <http://www.internationalrivers.org/files/GlobalResGHGsFAQ.pdf&gt;.

 

Keefer, M. L. et al. “Prespawn Mortality in Adult Spring Chinook Salmon Out Planted above Barrier Dams” The Ecology of Freshwater Fish 19 (2010) 361-372. http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.uaf.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=c23df883-04cf-428f-be65-8a49a40e683b%40sessionmgr15&vid=22&hid=14

Lopez-Pujol, Jordi and Ming-Xun Ren, “Biodiversity and the Three Gorges Reservoir: A Troubled Marriage” Journal of Natural History 43, no 43-44 (2009) 2765-2786. http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.uaf.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=c23df883-04cf-428f-be65-8a49a40e683b%40sessionmgr15&vid=20&hid=110

 

Marriot, Joe et al, “Impact of Power Generation Mix on Life Cycle Assessment and Carbon Footprint Greenhouse Gas Results,” Journal of Industrial Ecology 14, no 6 (2010) 917-928. http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.uaf.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=c23df883-04cf-428f-be65-8a49a40e683b%40sessionmgr15&vid=18&hid=110

 

Mourad, Ben Amor, et al, “Electricity Trade and GHG Emissions: Assessment of Quebec’s Hydropower in the Northeastern American Market (2006-2008),” Energy Policy 39, no 3 (2011) 1711-1721. http://dx.doi.org.proxy.library.uaf.edu/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.01.001

 

Roland, Fabio et al, “Variability of Carbon Dioxide Flux from Tropical (Cerrado)

Hydroelectric Reservoirs,” Aquatic Sciences 72 (2010) 283-293. http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.uaf.edu/ehost/detail?sid=c23df883-04cf-428f-be65-8a49a40e683b%40sessionmgr15&vid=19&hid=110

 

Welch, David W. et al, “Survival of Migrating Salmon Smolts in Large Rivers With and Without Dams” PloS Biology 6, no 10 (2008) 2101-2108. http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.uaf.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=c23df883-04cf-428f-be65-8a49a40e683b%40sessionmgr15&vid=22&hid=14

Zach Horner Research Draft 2 Workshop

1. A large amount of material is made easy to understand and is very organized.

2. Any concerns?

3. Thesis is great, explains focus well.

4. Thesis correct and bold.

5. Essay has 1,911 words not including references.

6. This is an easy nine. Very interesting topic with many different facets considered in depth.

7. More discussion of ghost cities and the effect on the local people would strengthen your argument and be interesting to the reader.

8. There are no clear solutions presented in the conclusion and no clear call to action.

9. Add some solutions or call to action in the conclusion. Should all dams be returned to original state? No new dams? What is a good alternative?

10. Each paragraph relates well to the thesis.

11. Mostly good, the 5^th paragraph to 6^th needs some work. A quote ends and the new paragraph does not start smoothly at all.

12. Opening is much improved and captures my attention nicely. Maybe move first sentence down into the paragraph more.

13. Conclusion is logical and complete but needs a call to action.

14. Draft contains 13 sources with over 5 being scholarly.

15. Sources are pretty equally used.

16. Citations are done correctly and vary in format (not just (blah, 2012)).

17. No unused sources.

18. Good balance of opinion to quotes.

19. No long quotes.

20. No.

21. The only quote needs commentary after it. This would also help the transition to the next paragraph.

Looks great! A good paper got even better.

 

Responses #11-15

3 Articles

Article 1

1) Who is the audience?

This article, “How Factory Farms Are Killing Seals,” by Tom Philpott, is directed towards the general public and convincing them of the issues of releasing antibiotics into the environment. Most people are not aware of the issues associated with bulk food-animal farms.

2) What is the main point of the article?

This article is focused on alerting the general public to the issue of releasing antibiotics into the environment and the effect it has on oceanic mammals.

3) How is or isn’t the article effective?

This article is effective because it does not drown the reader in a pool of facts and graphs. This article provides just enough information to entice the reader to learn more and study further.

4) What’s the implication for the environment?

If people are not aware of this issue then no one will ever attempt to stop this. There are very dangerous and very real hazards to humans that can arise from this issue. The pandemic outbreak of antibiotic-resistant diseases is a very real possibility.

5) What are the counterarguments?  If there aren’t any addressed, say what they are.

There are not really any counterarguments. The meat farms simply deny the fact that there are any effects. They claim that there are no definite studies to back up the idea that there are hazards to dumping antibiotics into the waterways.

6) If you were to pursue this issue, what would you research next?

I would delve deeper into information regarding the deaths of the sea life, including mammals, fish and invertebrates. On top of that I would research the amount of antibiotics and other chemicals dumped into the waterways and their effects on the wildlife.

Article 2

1) Who is the audience?

A Popular Science article called “Fast Food,” discusses the 2009 completion of a vegetable-based Formula One racecar. This article is directed towards the average person that reads average magazines. It is not directed towards scientists or environmentalists. It is simply directed towards the average reader.

2) What is the main point of the article?

The main point of this article is to alert the average person to the new developments in green engineering. It alerts the average person to the new technology available to allow consumers to be green conscious.

3) How is or isn’t the article effective?

It is an effective article that shows the new technology for green engineering. It is not preachy and does not drown the reader in volumes of facts.

4) What’s the implication for the environment?

The implications are huge. New green vehicle technology can revolutionize the automotive industry and overnight create a competitive market that can produce high quality vehicles that are less harmful to the environment.

5) What are the counterarguments?  If there aren’t any addressed, say what they are.

There are no counterarguments addressed. However, I do foresee difficulties in promoting this technology to aircraft manufacturers and the military.

6) If you were to pursue this issue, what would you research next?

I would be curious what technologies have been developed. I would also be interested in the cost of manufacturing this technology for the average household vehicle.

Article 3

1) Who is the audience?

In the May 2009 issue of The Environmental Magazine, there is an article called “Eating Mercury.” This article is directed to the more healthy-eating population. This article is more likely to be overlooked by the average person.

2) What is the main point of the article?

The main point of this article is to provide the reader with information regarding the consumption of Mercury that is found in corn syrup.

3) How is or isn’t the article effective?

This article is a little dull to read, however, it is an interesting topic. The whole idea of corn syrup being the evil anti-Christ of society is rather overdone. However, Mercury being the culprit in corn syrup is a new take one it.

4) What’s the implication for the environment?

The implications from consuming Mercury are hazardous. Mercury consumption can affect nervous systems, fetal development and other developmental processes.

5) What are the counterarguments?  If there aren’t any addressed, say what they are.

No one argues that the consumption of Mercury is dangerous. However, recent studies have shown that the human body does no differentiate between the consumption of sugar cane sugar and high fructose corn syrup. The body simply understands sugar.

6) If you were to pursue this issue, what would you research next?

I would like to further understand the contamination of corn syrup by Mercury from factory processes. I would like to know exactly how much contamination there has been.

1        Website

1) Who is the audience?

This National Geographic Society website is directed towards the average person. It provides simple methods any person can follow to save electricity, insulate your house and other small scale green ideas that make an impact on a large scale.

2) What is the main point of the website?

The point of the website is to provide environmentally sound ideas for the average person to follow. National Geographic is a trusted website that everyone knows about and has heard of. This website is a good method of conveying green ideas to the general public.

3) How is or isn’t the website effective?

This website is effective because it is not directed to the intense environmentalist. Not everyone wishes to go to a dedicated environmental website. However, by having this important information available to the common person on a well-known and trusted website, it is possible to draw in a new crowd of people that are environmentally conscious and at the same time not eco-nuts.

4) What’s the implication for the environment?

This is an environmentally beneficial method of getting green ideas out to the general public. Aside from National Geographic being a trusted website, there is no pollution from websites. There are no advertisement handouts or flyers to get blown off of telephone poles or news boards. There are zero negative impacts from websites.

5) How does this website propose to fill a niche?

There are plenty of dedicated environmental websites that focus on the eco-junkie and radical environmentalist. However, this website is focused on National Geographic, but it provides a stable and trusted medium to convey this information to the general public.

6) What are the pros and cons that you can see of this purpose?

It promotes environmentally safe practices and methods of going green in the society of today.

 

 

1 Video

The movie Food Inc. discusses the issues with commercially produced foods. The movie covers topics such as bulk produced corn that finds its ways into the food sources of cattle. Since cattle are not genetically designed to consume corn this creates issues such as producing E.coli. The movie also discusses the use of corn in nearly every food product in today’s market. It then covers the problems with genetically modified seeds such as corn and soy.

On top of making the viewer afraid to eat almost everything in today’s world, the movie covers the abusive methods corporations treat the company employees as well as the abuse the animals suffer throughout their lives prior to slaughter. It discusses how animals are genetically modified to produce larger breasts or grow from a newly hatched chick to a fully adult chicken in only 49 days rather than 60 days. It is from these genetically modified animals that a majority of our meat products come.

Finally the movie discusses methods that the average consumer can follow in order to purchase organic foods. It also discusses ways which people can insist on only purchasing and eating organic foods, and once the demand for organic is high enough then corporations will begin to require organics be produced. The power lies with money. Once organic products become the money maker then corporations will begin to produce organic products.

The movie is extremely informative and is very easy to watch. It is produced in an entertaining fashion as to keep the viewer entertained without drowning them in tons of facts. The movie is designed to be watched by the average person and be understood by the average person. Overall it is a very entertaining and terrifying movie.

 

 

 

Works Cited

The Green Guide. National Geographic Magazine. 23 April 2012. http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/green-guide/

 

Food Inc. Dir. Robert Kenner. Participant Media. 2008.

 

Philpott, Tom. “Factory Farms Are Killing Seals.” Mother Jones.24 February 2012. http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2012/02/how-factory-farms-are-killing-seals

Gross, Alexandra. “Eating Mercury.” The Environmental Magazine.  1 May 2009. http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.uaf.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=97ed8678-525d-4320-8878-4ab83e085e45%40sessionmgr15&vid=2&hid=8

 

Rdsenwald, Mike. “Fast Food.” Popular Science. 1 August 2009. http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.uaf.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=f9c69530-7b33-4898-a6e2-d93e71d453af%40sessionmgr4&vid=2&hid=8

Response #11-15

Response #11-15

Article #1

The very name of the article, How Factory Farms Are Killing Seals, is thought provoking. How can farms be harming sea creatures? Author Tom Philpott reveals an ugly side to farming that the industry wants covered up. This piece is written for anyone who doesn’t want the sea life of our planet to suffer for our need for cheap food. The focus of the article if the fact those bacterial strains that are easily killed by antibiotics get passed around in factory farms. The livestock are then treated with antibiotics but the bacteria are not all killed, it just moves from one animal to another, gaining immunity to the antibiotics. Eventually a super bug is created that makes its way into the ocean by way of animals feces in the watershed. Now a super strong, highly contagious bacterium is in the ocean food chain and spreads into animals. The animals’ immune systems where never designed to handle human enhanced germs and they suffer greatly. The truly scary part is these diseased animals are found in areas humans swim too. So now the problem has come full circle, and humans have to clean up their own mess. The writing itself is short and to the point, this makes the information effective and easily understood and obsorbed by the reader. The environment is already taking a hit for human messiness. Not only did farmers let the super bugs get into the natural environment, they failed to think of the results of craming millions of animals together and trying to kill every germ. There are no real arguments; the path of these bacteria can be traced from farm to seal. What I want to know is what can be done to stop this cycle before the super germs get into humans and we have no way to stop them. This need to be researched as it is a huge problem that we are creating diseases we can’t treat.

Article #2

While the title Navigating a Critical Juncture for Sustainable Weed Management is not the catchiest phrase ever, this article confronts a growing problem that will affect all members of society. Author David Mortensen highlights a growing problem that could destroy our food supply which would bring all of society crashing to a halt. Currently the common way to control weeds in a field of crops is to make those crops resistant to the herbicide that kills all the weeds. If the crop is genetically engineered to not die while a poison kills everything else growing in the field everything works out right? Wrong! The problem is that weeds are growing immune to the herbicide as well. Stronger and stronger chemicals are created to keep up with the weeds evolution. These chemicals pose a greater danger to the surrounding environment by seeping through the ground and casing pollution and other effects that are not completely understood. The article is pretty effective but uses too much wordy language. Simpler language would make the article more accessible to everybody. Again there is not much that can be argued the weeds are getting stronger and farmers have no permanent solutions. A deeper look at the effects of these stronger chemicals in the wild and a look at possible solutions would be greatly beneficial to the case Mortensen is making. If farmers keep going in the direction they are going now the weeds will outgrow the herbicides and humans will not be able to control them.

Article #3

At first I didn’t know what to make of the title of this article; German blue chip firms throw weight behind North African solar project. What does that even mean? Turns out some big companies in Europe are getting to getter to build giant solar plants in Africa and transmit all that power across the sea to Europe. It is a simple sounding plan but one with huge implications for all parties. Author Kate Connolly explores the many pluses and minuses to such a complex plan. The goal is to help all parties and get clean power to Europe. If this plan works it could be replicated around the world and its progress should be watched by all people who want clean energy. The article is effective in that it covers all sides and considers many views. It makes sure the African nations will profit from this new plan as well as the large European companies fronting the bill. The argument were made and countered that the long transmission of power may not be feasible. New technologies allow power to be sent longer distances for cheap and with little loss. The environment will benefit greatly because if the plan works, Europe will suddenly create no pollution to provide power to the many countries and peoples of the continent. I would like more information on how the power will get from one side of the Mediterranean to the other. There are many technical hurdles that must be met that the article does not fully cover.

Video

The movie Collapse hits the viewer like a slap in the face. Director Chris Smith holds back no punches in this movie built around a riveting interview of a prominent investigative journalist, Michael Ruppert. This film is aimed at all Americans who need to wake up and come to terms with the impending collapse of our civilization. Ruppert says that he is trying to reach out and educate people until he reaches “the hundredth monkey.” This saying is referring to a study conducted of monkeys where once a hundred monkeys learned a skill or new way of doing things the rest of the monkeys followed suit. Ruppert’s main point is to reveal the deep rooted problems America faces and to convince the viewer it is time to at and prepare for what is come; the end of the world as we know it. The movie is very effective in portraying the dark implications of what he is saying. The simple basement or bunker the interview takes place in sets a dark forbidding mood right from the beginning. Throughout Ruppert’s testimony videos and news clips show the evidence backing up what he is saying. The filmmakers also put in long blackouts that allowed the words to sink in to the viewer and emphasized important points. Environmentally this film didn’t talk about pollution or global warming specifically; it mainly was about how the environmental restraints, such as a limited amount of oil, are what will end the global economy. There are many counter arguments that are not addressed specifically. Ruppert at one point says he doesn’t do debates because he is right and the facts are with him. This also brings up the argument that this man is a crazy conspiracy theorist. The next thing to research would be to check if his predictions have come true in the past and where he gets his information. A fact check conducted independently by the viewer would add great weight to the words of this man. This movie does bring up a lot of questions and Mr. Ruppert seems to have all the answers, which is hard to believe.

Website

Trash Trip is a website dedicated to exploring waste that has been spread from coast to coast. There are many posts revealing the many deposits and uses of the trash everywhere. It also serves to highlight the massive quantities of valuable resources that go toward handling our trash. The website is very effective, using a blot style of postings and pictures to not just tell of the mess humans have made but also show it. The amount of pollution humans have put into the natural environment is unacceptable and all humans should be concerned. Our society cannot continue this way, we need to reduce our waste and find new ways to deal with the massive piles of trash that are destroying the world we live in. A counter argument is that this trash is not that big compared to the vastness of nature. This may be true if you just consider a bucket of waste just as a piece of trash. What this site points out is the potential for that waste to get in the water supply and contaminate and harm many forms of life. The website has found its focus and fills the role to show that damage our trash has on the world around us. I see no cons to its existence; all of humanity should see that we need to reduce our waste and clean up our planet. I only wish that more websites could show the damage humans have caused and that more people would pay attention.