Energy and Place Project
Essential Questions:
1. How does energy impact Place?
2. How does your sense of place, your environmental ethic, and your understanding of energy needs influence man's use of Earth's resources and your own life style decisions?
1. How does energy impact Place?
2. How does your sense of place, your environmental ethic, and your understanding of energy needs influence man's use of Earth's resources and your own life style decisions?
|
Opening Statement Nuclear Debate
I know many of us understand the consequences and costs of CO2 emissions that are globally affecting the atmosphere. I would like to emphasize the urgency and seriousness of this situation. This is a problem that is happening now, and needs to be dealt with now. The best current solution to this problem is nuclear energy. We cannot sit around waiting for future generations to come up with other solutions to the threat of global climate change. And at this moment nuclear power is our best option. Since we have adopted the use of fossil fuels, the amount of CO2 that is being emitted into the atmosphere has greatly increased. From prehistoric air bubbles found in ice core sample from sites all around the world showed the amount of CO2 varied at different levels, but it never has gone above 300 parts per million. Over the last 100 years the amount of CO2 found in the atmosphere sky rocked due to the industrial revolution and was more than 400 parts per million in 2012. And everyday that number is growing causing more heat from the earth’s surface to be absorbed and increase the temperature of the earth. CO2 is a naturally occurring green house gas on earth and is part of a system, which is essential for life on earth. But if we have too much of one thing, that’s were problems start to occur. Nuclear power does not emit any CO2 into the atmosphere and is a clean energy source. If we don’t act now, and start relying on nuclear energy, by 2100 the expected over all temperature is expected to rise by 5 degrees due to the increased CO2 emissions in the atmosphere. Because of the increased temperature the icecaps will melt and cause the sea level to rise. The expected amount the sea is supposed to raise is around 20 cm to 60 cm, which will displace millions of people living near the sea level. The countries that will be most affected will be low-lying countries like Bangladesh costing billions of dollars. I hope that I expressed the urgency of the situation at hand, and urge you to consider nuclear energy as the best current option to stop relying on fossil fuels that continue to release more and more CO2 into the atmosphere each year. Even if nuclear energy has very serious risks, they can be mitigated and monitored. I ask that we look at nuclear energy as a stepping-stone for other sources of energy that is safer and just as efficient. The future is at risk and we must act now. |
Closing Statement Nuclear Debate
There is no arguing that there are risks with nuclear energy. There is the problem of nuclear waste storage, which can be safely maintained and regulated. Having radioactive material that last for thousands of years and is very harmful, but here are new way which can shorten the half-life of these materials by half. There are risks of nuclear meltdowns, making the surrounding areas unlivable like Chernobyl and 3-mile Island. But these disasters are lessons learned and we now live in a new era with better safety precautions and technology. These issues of climate change must need to be solved today. And even if we solely depend on nuclear energy, we can keep moving forward exploring new energy like fusion, which is just as efficient and clean as nuclear fission, but safer. All these risks can be mitigated and monitored so we can still live safely on this earth. If we continue to rely on coal, oil, and gas we will be dealing with mass extinctions not only of other species but our own, so lets solve this today. |
Project Reflection Nuclear Debate
The motion I was arguing for was for nuclear energy in the four corners area. I was impersonating a climate scientist who has expertise in climate change and studies ocean acidification. I was emphasizing the urgency of the situation and why nuclear energy is the best option for clean energy.
My initial position on the debate was for nuclear energy because it is the only clean energy source that is efficient enough to fit the demands of the U.S. Nuclear energy may have some risks but they can be managed and mitigated. I am all for renewable energy (like wind and solar) but they just aren’t efficient enough to provide a constant amount of energy for western society, and are too expensive for most people to afford. Nuclear energy is expensive to make at first but is very cheap energy once the plant is built.
Before we even learned about nuclear energy I was pretty closed minded about it because I just didn’t know much about it. I knew that radiation was really bad and knew a little about nuclear weapons, which made me fear the word “nuclear” in general. But through this project I got more educated about it and saw the pros and cons of nuclear energy. And seeing those made me form an opinion that with nuclear energy the pros, out weigh the cons. And now that I see that our country is relying on fossil fuels so much and seeing the effects it is having on the earth, it seems nuclear energy is the best way to fix this.
The strongest piece of evidence for nuclear energy is the fact that it emits no CO2 into the atmosphere and also is highly efficient. Since we have adopted the use of fossil fuels, the amount of CO2 that is being emitted into the atmosphere has greatly increased. From prehistoric air bubbles found in ice core sample from sites all around the world showed the amount of CO2 varied at different levels, but it never has gone above 300 parts per million. Over the last 100 years the amount of CO2 found in the atmosphere sky rocked due to the industrial revolution and was more than 400 parts per million in 2012. And everyday that number is growing causing more heat from the earth’s surface to be absorbed and increase the temperature of the earth.
The strongest argument for against nuclear energy is nuclear waste storage. All of these nuclear power plants have all of the high dangerous nuclear waste that they have no where to store it, and no one is letting them store it any where else so they are forced to store the waste in the nuclear facilities. Actually the nuclear industry is suing the government about this issue since the government promised to have an area to put the nuclear waste.
How I would persuade some one for nuclear energy that is against it is simply educating them about it. Like with my experience before this project I was opposed to nuclear energy because I didn’t know anything about it, which made me be afraid of it. It is a weird concept that when someone doesn’t know much about something they are so afraid of it. So teaching someone about nuclear energy is the best way to persuade them because they can really see the costs and benefits of nuclear energy.
My environmental ethic mirrors very closely the to a preservationist and conservationist. I believe in the Gaia hypothesis that earth is the big giant organism that consists of billion of ecosystems that all work together as one. I think that everyone has a special place, and they have a responsibility to protect it and preserve it. And by doing so it is all our responsibility to protect the earth as a home because it initially is everyone’s special place. And this is why I took the side for nuclear energy because I know it will be the best source of energy that doesn’t hurt the environment and will better preserve this planet for future generations.
During our debate I felt like my side did a very good job of being professional and providing good evidence that supports our motion. As a team, I felt like we worked hard to collaborate and support each other in answering certain questions. As far as my critique for myself I wish I could have been more fluid and clear with presenting my opening statement. I stuttered a lot and my pieces evidence didn’t seem to compel the audience as well as I hoped it would. Also I wish that the debate could have gone longer so that more points could have been made because I know that not everyone had felt like they had enough to say on the issue.
“From prehistoric air bubbles found in ice core sample from sites all around the world showed the amount of CO2 varied at different levels, but it never has gone above 300 parts per million. Over the last 100 years the amount of CO2 found in the atmosphere sky rocked due to the industrial revolution and was more than 400 parts per million in 2012.”
The statement were I said that the current amount of CO2 in the atmosphere was over 400 ppm was true according to NASA and the Chemistry for Life Society. I am glad that this statement was true because it showed to me that I gave significant effort to have creditable sources and make sure my facts are right.
Click Here to See the Humanities part of the project
The motion I was arguing for was for nuclear energy in the four corners area. I was impersonating a climate scientist who has expertise in climate change and studies ocean acidification. I was emphasizing the urgency of the situation and why nuclear energy is the best option for clean energy.
My initial position on the debate was for nuclear energy because it is the only clean energy source that is efficient enough to fit the demands of the U.S. Nuclear energy may have some risks but they can be managed and mitigated. I am all for renewable energy (like wind and solar) but they just aren’t efficient enough to provide a constant amount of energy for western society, and are too expensive for most people to afford. Nuclear energy is expensive to make at first but is very cheap energy once the plant is built.
Before we even learned about nuclear energy I was pretty closed minded about it because I just didn’t know much about it. I knew that radiation was really bad and knew a little about nuclear weapons, which made me fear the word “nuclear” in general. But through this project I got more educated about it and saw the pros and cons of nuclear energy. And seeing those made me form an opinion that with nuclear energy the pros, out weigh the cons. And now that I see that our country is relying on fossil fuels so much and seeing the effects it is having on the earth, it seems nuclear energy is the best way to fix this.
The strongest piece of evidence for nuclear energy is the fact that it emits no CO2 into the atmosphere and also is highly efficient. Since we have adopted the use of fossil fuels, the amount of CO2 that is being emitted into the atmosphere has greatly increased. From prehistoric air bubbles found in ice core sample from sites all around the world showed the amount of CO2 varied at different levels, but it never has gone above 300 parts per million. Over the last 100 years the amount of CO2 found in the atmosphere sky rocked due to the industrial revolution and was more than 400 parts per million in 2012. And everyday that number is growing causing more heat from the earth’s surface to be absorbed and increase the temperature of the earth.
The strongest argument for against nuclear energy is nuclear waste storage. All of these nuclear power plants have all of the high dangerous nuclear waste that they have no where to store it, and no one is letting them store it any where else so they are forced to store the waste in the nuclear facilities. Actually the nuclear industry is suing the government about this issue since the government promised to have an area to put the nuclear waste.
How I would persuade some one for nuclear energy that is against it is simply educating them about it. Like with my experience before this project I was opposed to nuclear energy because I didn’t know anything about it, which made me be afraid of it. It is a weird concept that when someone doesn’t know much about something they are so afraid of it. So teaching someone about nuclear energy is the best way to persuade them because they can really see the costs and benefits of nuclear energy.
My environmental ethic mirrors very closely the to a preservationist and conservationist. I believe in the Gaia hypothesis that earth is the big giant organism that consists of billion of ecosystems that all work together as one. I think that everyone has a special place, and they have a responsibility to protect it and preserve it. And by doing so it is all our responsibility to protect the earth as a home because it initially is everyone’s special place. And this is why I took the side for nuclear energy because I know it will be the best source of energy that doesn’t hurt the environment and will better preserve this planet for future generations.
During our debate I felt like my side did a very good job of being professional and providing good evidence that supports our motion. As a team, I felt like we worked hard to collaborate and support each other in answering certain questions. As far as my critique for myself I wish I could have been more fluid and clear with presenting my opening statement. I stuttered a lot and my pieces evidence didn’t seem to compel the audience as well as I hoped it would. Also I wish that the debate could have gone longer so that more points could have been made because I know that not everyone had felt like they had enough to say on the issue.
“From prehistoric air bubbles found in ice core sample from sites all around the world showed the amount of CO2 varied at different levels, but it never has gone above 300 parts per million. Over the last 100 years the amount of CO2 found in the atmosphere sky rocked due to the industrial revolution and was more than 400 parts per million in 2012.”
The statement were I said that the current amount of CO2 in the atmosphere was over 400 ppm was true according to NASA and the Chemistry for Life Society. I am glad that this statement was true because it showed to me that I gave significant effort to have creditable sources and make sure my facts are right.
Click Here to See the Humanities part of the project
Materials Project
From the years of our history whether we knew it or not, things were revolving around chemistry. Ever since man made his first tool, chemistry was a big factor in what made a good tool from a bad one. Chemistry is what keeps us alive, and it is also is what kills us. From our complex array of protein molecules, to the ancient smiting of metal, to rockets propelling us up to space, and to atomic bombs exploding killing millions, all of these things come down to chemistry.
Chemistry explains many mysteries in life that we normally don’t think about. And one think most don’t think about is how materials properties depend on its atomic structure. Whenever I drink from my Nalgene water bottle I never thought of what it is made out of. I never really realized how cool such a simple object really is. Nalgenes are made of a super strong cross-linked polymer mixed with hydrogen bonds intertwined throughout the entire structure making it super tightly liked together. Because of this it makes them seem so indestructible. If it wasn’t for these small little details in my Nalgene, I might be drinking out of a crumbling piece of plastic. So think about what your various objects are made of, because it might be more interesting than you think.
Chemistry explains many mysteries in life that we normally don’t think about. And one think most don’t think about is how materials properties depend on its atomic structure. Whenever I drink from my Nalgene water bottle I never thought of what it is made out of. I never really realized how cool such a simple object really is. Nalgenes are made of a super strong cross-linked polymer mixed with hydrogen bonds intertwined throughout the entire structure making it super tightly liked together. Because of this it makes them seem so indestructible. If it wasn’t for these small little details in my Nalgene, I might be drinking out of a crumbling piece of plastic. So think about what your various objects are made of, because it might be more interesting than you think.
For this project we found a way to improve a consumer product that plays an important role in your life by varying the elements, compounds, bonding or microstructure that determines its properties. Then we wrote and mailed a business letter to the company that makes the product suggesting for your changes to their product.
I wrote a business letter to Vibram who makes the toe shoes called FiveFingers, and I suggested that they incorporate elastic into the shoe. I found with FiveFingers the toes don’t fit as well as they should so by incorporating elastic into the shoe it would make it stretchy so that the FiveFingers could fit all aspects of the foot. The project was really cool, and also challenging.
I wrote a business letter to Vibram who makes the toe shoes called FiveFingers, and I suggested that they incorporate elastic into the shoe. I found with FiveFingers the toes don’t fit as well as they should so by incorporating elastic into the shoe it would make it stretchy so that the FiveFingers could fit all aspects of the foot. The project was really cool, and also challenging.
Dear Vibram, My name is Ande Lloyd and I am a very passionate runner, and a believer of barefoot running. I am currently a junior at Animas High School in Durango, Colorado and run Cross Country and Track for Durango High School. I love the FiveFingers running shoes; they are great shoes and really fun to run in. However, I find these great shoes do not fit well in the toe region. The shoes don’t fit every part of my foot. Some of the toes are too long or too short for my feet. Every year my family runs down to the river and back in the Grand Canyon, and on these long runs blisters are inevitable when running in FiveFingers. Every person’s foot is different in some odd way and I believe that changing the materials used to make FiveFingers would make the FiveFingers experience more individualized. Also the FiveFingers tend to wear and tear along the seams a lot faster than my other running shoes. Incorporating elastic into the rubber soles and in the fabric on top could make the shoes better quality. Elastic is a polymer that can be deformed then reshape itself to its original form. A polymer is a compound of long molecules formed by the combination of many parts of repeating units. With elastic there are many strands of polymers all bundled up like a pile of spaghetti. Then when each end of the spaghetti is pulled, the strains of molecules all line up to be parallel like. Elastomers are generally cross-linked polymers. Cross-linked polymers are generally more rigid, strong, and durable with higher melting points. And those cross-linkages act like springs, which make it return to its original shape when stress is removed. This is what makes elastic so stretchy. |
While FiveFingers are great shoes that simulate barefoot running, they can still be improved. By simply adding elastic into the soles and fabric this could make the shoe fit each individual’s foot perfectly. The originality of each person’s foot could be constituted for. Each person could buy a pair shoes that are a size too small and pull it on as if the shoe were a sock. Having a better fitting shoe could minimize rubbing when running and lesson the chances of blisters. To help lesson the chance of blisters its fabric is not what is causing the blisters but the sole. Since it is so stiff, the shoes don’t bend around the foot as well as they should. If elastic were integrated into the soles then the shoe could bend and twist even better. The shoe would mold itself to the person’s foot with all forms of movement; leaping, striding, bounding, or even squatting. Since the shoe would fit the individual’s foot better, it could cause the shoe to last a lot longer too. When continuously running in FiveFingers, from my experience, they only last about a month to two months before they begin to wear and tear. The seams and stiches are the part of the shoe that sees the most stress. Incorporating elastic could lessen to amount of strain on the seams and stiches. This could make the shoes better quality, making more people want to buy them. With more people exposed to FiveFingers it should be more personalized for everyone. Running in our bare feet is such a pleasurable experience and I remember the first time I started running in FiveFingers, I felt so free and alive. With the elastic mixed in with the rubber and the fabric, the shoe would act even more like our own bare feet. This way everyone is getting the real experience of bare foot running. I appreciate our consideration and time. I would love your feedback on this idea and you can contact me at [email protected] . Sincerely, Ande Lloyd Student, Animas High School Runner, Durango Cross Country and Track and Field |
Labs
Chemistry is one of the hardest courses at Animas High School. Linked below is all the labs we have done so far.
Constructing polymers using different specific polymerization rations to compare their strength using various testing methods
Abstract:
Polymers are unique states of matter that are present in our every day lives. The motivation behind this experiment is to learn the characteristics of polymers, learn a method to create a polymer, and to test the strength of different versions of the same polymer. The problem that is being tested is, does the polymerization ratio affect the strength of the polymer? A polymerization ratio is comparing the monomer, catalyst, and initiator. And a rod mold, puck mold, spoon mold, and Santa Claus mold were made to test in the experiment. Two tests were done using the puck mold and the rod mold. Test one used the rod mold in a suspended weight test were weight was hung from the rod until the rod broke. Test two involved the puck molds using a hammer lever, where the hammer was first dropped from 15-degrees and then 15-degree increments until the puck broke. In the first experiment it was proved that the greater the polymerization ratio the stronger the polymer is. Test two had one polymer that had a lower polymerization ratio have a greater impact angle, which contradicts the prediction that the greater the polymerization ratio the stronger the polymer. The significance of these results are not substantial because the process of making the polymers posed many problem like leaking, and unequal amount of the mixture used for the pucks. Changes that should be made with this experiment are to ensure there is an equal amount of caprolactone in each mold, and it should be ensured that there are an equal amount of molds made for each polymerization ratio.
Click here for the rest of the lab
Abstract:
Polymers are unique states of matter that are present in our every day lives. The motivation behind this experiment is to learn the characteristics of polymers, learn a method to create a polymer, and to test the strength of different versions of the same polymer. The problem that is being tested is, does the polymerization ratio affect the strength of the polymer? A polymerization ratio is comparing the monomer, catalyst, and initiator. And a rod mold, puck mold, spoon mold, and Santa Claus mold were made to test in the experiment. Two tests were done using the puck mold and the rod mold. Test one used the rod mold in a suspended weight test were weight was hung from the rod until the rod broke. Test two involved the puck molds using a hammer lever, where the hammer was first dropped from 15-degrees and then 15-degree increments until the puck broke. In the first experiment it was proved that the greater the polymerization ratio the stronger the polymer is. Test two had one polymer that had a lower polymerization ratio have a greater impact angle, which contradicts the prediction that the greater the polymerization ratio the stronger the polymer. The significance of these results are not substantial because the process of making the polymers posed many problem like leaking, and unequal amount of the mixture used for the pucks. Changes that should be made with this experiment are to ensure there is an equal amount of caprolactone in each mold, and it should be ensured that there are an equal amount of molds made for each polymerization ratio.
Click here for the rest of the lab
