Bugging Out: Biological Pollution?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/8533671/Bugs-in-the-atmosphere-may-cause-bad-weather.html

Bugs in the Atmosphere May Cause Bad Weather

Summary

Reseachers have begun finding bacteria and in the center of hail stones. The hail is formed around the microbes, causing there to be precipitation where there wouldn't have been otherwise. In fact, the discovery suggests that the bacteria play an important role in not only the formation of hail, but other sorts of precipitation, too. One bacteria, Pseudomonas syringae, is very well-studied as a biological precipitation-causer, and has been found to "possess a gene that encodes a protein in their outer membrane that binds water molecules in an ordered arrangement, providing a very efficient nucleating [(the core of the precipitation)] template that enhances ice crystal formation". So not only can precipitation be formed around living organisms, those organisms may create superior precipitation than more traditional forms. The researchers have run simulations which suggest that high concentrations of biological particles have numerous effects, including cloud cover and ground precipitation levels. It is even thought that they can affect the way the planet is insulated from solar radiation.

Reflection

I think this is absolutely amazing. I was shocked that the microbes even made it that far up in the atmosphere. I guess once they're up there, it makes a lot of sense that they become the nuclei for precipitation, but it's still intriguing. I'm also surprised that scientists didn't discover this before. It seems like someone would have realized that there was bacteria in the center of the hail, while running tests or something. If I'm interpreting this correctly, then the fact that P. syingae posses a gene that assists in the precipitation-forming process suggests that this isn't a recent development, and that bacteria have been the nuclei of precipitation for so long that they have begun to evolve to do it better. I just think that is so amazing. And the possible effects that having bionucleis can cause? All I can say is wow, I would never expect such a small change could have such results. I'm really excited to hear more about this, and an update about how accurate the computer simulation was.

Questions

1) Do the researchers' findings surprise you?

2) What do you think of the computer simulation?

3) How do you think the bacteria got so high? Is it our doing?

4) P. syringae is a bug that infects plants. Do you think bioprecipitation can spread disease?

Arctic Ozone Depletion

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42429967/ns/world_news-world_environment/Transparent

Scientists: Arctic Ozone Depletion ‘unprecedented’

By: Stephanie Nebehay
An article from World Environment on NBC.com
April 4th, 2011

Summary

The article I read is all about how the ozone layer has had a record loss this past winter. In fact, the United Nations agency said that from the beginning of the winter to late March, the ozone column lost 40 percent of its mass. That’s a lot, and was an amount unheard of until now.
In previous years, the highest mass ever lost was 30 percent. This occurred during several seasons for 15 years, so for the ozone layer to lose 40 percent in one winter, that’s just unbelievably terrible.

The area where the ozone layer is depleted can move. And if it moves toward lower latitudes, ultraviolet (UV) radiation will be higher than normal in the upcoming seasons for those areas. So a depleted ozone layer doesn’t just affect one spot, it affects a large, widespread area. A spokesperson from the World Meteorological Organization advised people to check UV forecasts for their areas, because less of the ozone layer means less protection from the sun’s harmful rays.

If the depleted ozone layer is to move away from the Arctic towards lower latitudes, it would affect some of Russia, Canada, Nordic countries, and even Alaska in the US. However, a UV radiation increase in those parts of the world would be less intense than if the increase was to take place in the tropics.

Not only people are affected by UV rays (which contribute to immune system damage, skin cancer, and cataracts in humans). Marine life and crops can also suffer from harmful effects.
Over Antarctica, large ozone loss is not uncommon. In fact, it occurs every year. This is extremely different from the Arctic stratosphere, because conditions there vary each year.
The Montreal Protocol was an international agreement to cut production and consumption of halons, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), and other ozone-destroying chemicals. It was thought to be very successful (The 1987 pact eliminated substances like CFCs and halons that used to be used in fire extinguishers, spray cans, and refrigerators), but for some reason the drastic ozone mass loss still occurred.

Any way you look at it, the recent ozone mass loss was extremely drastic and is going to have adverse effects on humans, marine life, and crops alike.

Opinion/Reflection

I personally think that the ozone loss is extremely terrible. It’s almost unbelievable that 40 percent of the ozone layer’s mass could be lost in one winter when previously the highest amount heard of was a 30 percent loss. That just shows how bad people are. We need to stop using ozone-depleting substances.

I feel that until the UV rays start increasing in many areas of lower latitude around the world, people won’t realize what they’ve done. Sure, people will see news stories (like this one) and hear scientists talk about the damage, but they won’t understand the full impact until they see some changes. It’s sad, though, because UV rays cause cataracts, skin cancer, and immune system damage, so by the time people truly realize what they’ve done, it will be too late. People will have to learn the hard way, unfortunately.

I believe it is extremely unfair for marine life to have to suffer on our behalf. They’re not doing anything to harm the ozone layer, they’re not using ozone-depleting substances, so why should they be affected? The thing is they shouldn’t. But humans and animals are all on the same earth, so anything that one species does will affect the other. It’s extremely sad, and I feel really bad for the animals who have to suffer despite the fact that they aren’t doing anything wrong.
I also feel bad for people who don’t pollute atmosphere. If people don’t want the ozone layer to keep losing its mass, then everyone has to work together to try and stop it. This doesn’t just mean the people in America, though. People from all over the world have to pitch in and stop using ozone-depleting substances, or the damage that we have caused will continue to get worse.

Finally, I thought that the Montreal Protocol was a very good idea, and it’s sad that more people don’t abide by its rules. After all, the agreement was made for the well being of humans and the only people we’re hurting by not following is ourselves. And that’s just sad.
This article relates to class because we started learning about the atmosphere and one of the important parts of the atmosphere is the ozone layer. It helps protect people from the sun’s harmful rays, and without it, I don’t know if humans or other forms of life would be around.

Ask Questions

1. What other effects can UV rays have on humans?
2. Name some ways in which marine life and crops will have to suffer because of the ozone layer depletion.
3. Why do you think people keep using ozone-depleting substances, even though they make the ozone layer lose mass?
4. Do you think people will realize what they’re doing soon, or not until it’s too late? What do you consider that too late to be?
5. Why do you think that having ozone depletion over the tropics would be more intense than having ozone depletion elsewhere? (by intense I mean it makes people suffer more)

I realize now that this question should say more intense, but I didn't want to change it and mess everyone's comments up.

6. How come the ozone lost so much mass recently, other than the obvious fact that people are continuing to use ozone-depleting substances?

Graphics

Left: This image shows the logo for the Montreal Protocol

Right: This picture shows the UV radiation that hits towns and people when the ozone layer is there compared to the amount of UV rays that hit towns and people when the ozone layer is gone.

Why has the weather gone cuckoo by Anthony R. Wood
May 23, 2011
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/nation_world/122431754.html

As many have noticed the weather has been acting very strange lately. There's been a flood around the Mississippi River, and a record number of tornadoes, including one in Northeast Philly. Not surprisingly, some people think global warming is involved. Various studies are showing that the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is increasing. In fact The World Meteorological Organization reported (2000-2009) to be the wettest decade on record dating since 1850. Also the twisters were fueled by vapor-rich water off an abnormally warm Gulf of Mexico. This doesn't automatically make it global warming, however. While precipitation has been increasing in the Northern Hemisphere, in other places, such Africa, it has actually been decreasing. Many other factors are being taken into account, such as air pressure (though some things surprised them, as no huge changes were shown to have taken place in key air circulation patterns that govern the globe's weather).

Once again people are blaming global warming. I do think so myself, but I don't think its the whole problem. I think we might be going through another pattern, though how act still affects the weather. I think we can all see that the weather has been acting up, I mean we had a tornado warning at school. Getting a tornado where we live, that's just unheard of. People have to stop contributing to the effects of global climate change. While we're not fully responsible, we could at least do our part not let it get any worse.

1. Do you find global warming to blame for the odd weather?
2. Were you scared when we got the tornado warning?
3. How has the weather affected your recent life?

Burn baby burn

O’Malley will sign waste-to-energy bill

by Matthew Cella

The Washington Times

8:28 p.m., Tuesday, May 17, 2011

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/may/17/omalley-will-sign-waste-energy-bill/

Gov. Martin O'Malley of Maryland announced on Tuesday that he will be signing a bill that will classify waste-to-energy as the same renewable energy as solar or wind. Maryland currently gets 5.5% of its energy from renewable sources, and they hope to reach their goal of 20% by 2022. While some supporters of this waste-to-energy bill say that it is more environmentally friendly than landfills, others argue that it releases pollution, removes the incentive for recycling, and competes with other cleaner modes of renewable energy. O'Malley points out that Maryland is not the first state to do this. In fact, over half the states that have a renewable energy goal classify municipal solid waste as a renewable energy source.

In theory waste-to-energy, or incineration, is the ideal method of renewable energy. You take care of the trash problem, and the energy crisis at the same time. Unfortunately, incineration causes air pollution, which is very bad for the environment. However, how good or bad something is for the environment doesn't have anything to do with whether its renewable or not. Renewable means that its being made faster than its being used, and seeing that that is the case with trash and waste, it is technically renewable. Therefore by all means I believe that incineration should be classified as renewable. Saying that it's not is like saying nuclear power is. You have to put the right label on things. Keeping this in mind it should also be noted that renewable energy shouldn't be labeled as automatically clean.

Do you think that someday there might be a way to get rid of the air pollution from incineration?
Do you think incineration should be classified as renewable?
How would you feel if you lived near an incineration plant?

Ay Caramba!

According to Green, a New York Times environmental blog, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, a government agency responsible for monitoring nuclear power plants, said in a statement this week that an incident last fall at the Brown's Ferry plant in Alabama was much more serious than previously thought. The NRC says that a valve controlling the residual heat system, which allows the reactor to cool down when shut off, got stuck inside the plant, raising the threat level to "red," the most serious of the NRC's color-based threat scale.

Last week, the Oyster Creek and Nine Mile Point 1 plants in New Jersey and Syracuse, respectively, separately announced that General Electric had given them faulty math calculations regarding the uranium fuel rods it shipped to them. The error, if GE hadn't realized and notified the plants in time, would have caused the fuel to overheat past the intended levels.

The NRC says that the public was never in danger, but the valve issue at Brown's Ferry apparently might have been MONTHS OLD before operators discovered it. This is serious, because the failure of the residual heat systems was the cause of the Fukushima Daiichi meltdown in Japan.

Despite the assurances of the NRC and the lack of any damage or injuries resulting from either of these three events, it seems likely that this will lower the public's confidence in the American nuclear power industry even further. However, as proponents note, it is a major source of "clean" energy.

You can read more by clicking on the link to the original article either above or here.

Reflection

I think these incidents reflect on the flaws of our nuclear policy. These mistakes were thankfully realized before they could have a negative effect, but we can't expect to get that lucky every time. I think safety should come first, especially when we're dealing with radioactive materials near populated areas. The federal government needs to close these holes so more mishaps don't slip through.

Questions

1. Do you think people are right in being concerned over these incidents, or are we just having a bit of hysteria because of Japan?
2. Which should come first: Energy independence, which could save our nation millions, or safety?
3. How do you think we should prevent these types of problems from happening again and causing serious damage?
4. Is nuclear energy worth the risks it can present?

UN Renewables ‘Bible’ Says Clean Energy Can Outstrip Demand

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-04/un-renewables-bible-says-in-report-that-clean-energy-can-outstrip-demand.html

A graphic showing the great disparity between current alternative energy instalments and total possible clean energy instalments in India alone. Notice that solar power is literally off the charts for potential, but has the fewest instalments.

Summary

My article reported on a recently released report by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The highlight of the report is the conclusion that there is far, far more possibilities for clean energy available that we have yet to tap into. In fact, we've only hit the tip of the iceberg for most alternatives, especially solar, as the graphic notes. The really exciting part, though, is that the report concludes that there is more potential for clean energy then there is demand for power! Isn't that great? The report goes on to say that wind and solar may grow twenty-fold over the next four decades. The lownote of the article was the report's belief that less than 2.5% of the total potential will in fact be used in practice. The report also predicted that up to 5.1 trillion dollars in investments would be required to meet it's predictions and transition to a fossil-fuel free existence.

Reflection

Isn't that fantastic?  A world that doesn't rely on fossil fuels won't be some sort of anarchic dystopia, as is sometimes suggested! And, if we get a move on converting to these alternative energies now, we can save some of what's left of the environment, too! I can't believe how little clean energy we use considering how much is out there, waiting for us to harness it. Before I read this article, I had been under the impression that clean energy sources were rare and difficult to find. While this is true for some sources (eg geothermal and wave), for many sources that is completely untrue. In fact solar and wind power, which also happen to be the two sources most accessible for home owners, have loads of possible plants completely untapped! This article has significantly changed my perception of the fossil fuel dilemma. It bothers me how little of the potential the report predicts will actually be harnessed, though.

Questions

1) Do you think that the UN's assessment and predictions sound reasonable? 

2) How do you think we can increase the number of clean energy instalments?

3) Where do you think the $5.1 trillion dollars will come from, the public or private sector?

4) How do you think governments could help make the transition from fossil fuels to clean energies?

Photovoltaic Cells

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/20/transparent-photovoltaic-cells-turn-windows-into-solar-panels/?partner=rss&emc=rss

Transparent Photovoltaic Cells Turn Windows Into Solar Panels
By: John Collins Rudolf
An article from Green, A Blog About Energy and the Environment
April 20, 2011

Summary

Recently, a new kind of photovoltaic cell was developed. It can transform a windowpane into a solar panel without obstructing the passage of visible light. Hopes for the future include turning skyscrapers into enormous solar collectors, and integrating the photovoltaic cells into other tall buildings.

For a long time, photovoltaic cells have failed because they block too much light (so they can’t be used in windows) or they haven’t been able to achieve high efficiency. However, the new photovoltaic cells are designed to only absorb the near-infrared spectrum. There is a possibility that these cells could transform light into electricity very efficiently in the future.

For the time being, the efficiency of the photovoltaic cell is around 2 percent. However, this is just a prototype model, and scientists predict that by further modifying the cells, their efficiency could be increased to about 10 percent.

Efficiency and light blocking isn’t the biggest challenge that needs to be overcome with these photovoltaic cells. Instead, it is the longevity of the cells themselves. Right now, the cells don’t have a long enough life to be installed in window panes. Photovoltaic cells need to be modified to last for 20 plus years, or at least the lifespan of a typical window. Otherwise it would be pointless to install them.

A professor of electrical engineering, Vladimir Bulovic stated that the longevity problem won’t be too difficult to overcome, and that it will be resolved within a decade.

If the photovoltaic cells are modified to last a long time, then it will be cheap to put them into windows. This is in part because the cost of installing traditional photovoltaic cells is mainly from the materials the cells are resting upon, not the cost of the cells themselves. The cost for installing new photovoltaic cells would be no different. And if these cells are installed in windows or previously existing buildings, then the majority of the cost would have already been paid for.

Dr. Lunt believes that the power photovoltaic cells generate could “offset the energy use of large buildings.” The cells wouldn’t power the whole building, but rather be used for lighting and everyday electronics.

All in all, these new photovoltaic cells have great potential.

Opinion/Reflection

I personally think that these photovoltaic cells are really cool. Since coal is going to run out maybe not in the near future, but eventually, it is great that scientists are coming up with other ways to get energy. Photovoltaic cells are a very interesting form of alternative energy that I think could be very beneficial to us when they are modified to be more effective and have a longer life.

I think it’s amazing that little photovoltaic cells can generate so much energy. They’re also extremely transparent, thus they won’t block light from shining through windows. This quality makes them perfect to install in large buildings, which are often built from head to toe with windows.

I was surprised when I read that the efficiency rate of the cells is only 2 percent. Yes, what the percentage is based off of is a prototype, but still, I expected it to be much higher, especially because of the way in which the article highly praises the photovoltaic cells.

Even though Mr. Bulovic is extremely optimistic about being able to engineer the cells so that they have a longer life, I don’t think it’s so easy. I’m not a scientist or anything, but I feel like that would be a pretty difficult challenge to overcome. However, he does state that the task could be accomplished in “a decade” or so. The article may be very optimistic about photovoltaic cells, but figuring out the longevity issue is one they can’t hide. Unless you read the article carefully, though, you may not have caught what he said.

Finally, I just have to say that I think the whole idea of photovoltaic cells is really great. While it may take a while for them to be modified to have a longer life and higher efficiency rate, I believe it could eventually be done. When those modifications are accomplished, the photovoltaic cells are going to be extremely beneficial and I feel that they will be installed in lots of buildings in the future.

This article relates to class because it talks about a type of alternative energy that has recently been developed. While it was not an energy source we learned about in class, it is a source other than coal that generates energy, so it can be considered an alternative energy source. In fact, photovoltaic cells are one of the forms of alternative energy that I find most interesting.

Ask Questions

1) Do you think photovoltaic cells are a good invention? When they are further modified, do you think they could be beneficial?
2) Are you as optimistic as Bulovic about extending the lifespan of photovoltaic cells?
3) About how much energy (do you think) could be generated if photovoltaic cells were installed in a typical New York City skyscraper?
4) Do you think that the energy photovoltaic cells generate would be enough to support people living in a single home (if they have these cells installed in all their windows)?
5) When these photovoltaic cells are finally sold, do you think they will be popular?
6) What problems can you think of involving photovoltaic cells?

Add a graphic

The above graphic is a picture of Dr. Lunt looking through a transparent photovoltaic solar cell.