Solar Panels, Extra Credit Blog

Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/15/science/earth/15solar.html?_r=1&ref=solarenergy

Picture:  This picture shows solar panels on the top of a roof in California. This project is called the Million Solar Roof Program, and it is one of many in California.  

Summary: People in California are starting to wonder about solar panels, and how they can they help with the energy cost. But there is a worry among the people who want the solar panels, the initial cost. Solar panels can cost anywhere from $48,000 for an average home, to tens of thousands of dollars for a larger home or building. This is the main worry for people hesitating to get solar panels installed. But now cities are starting to do something to help with the money issue. The solar panels are now going to be able to be financed like gas lines, and covered by a loan and secured by property taxes. This is helping families to be able to put up solar panels on their homes, and in the long run saving money. The idea for this way of helping families pay for the solar panels was started two years ago in Berkeley. Cisco DeVries, the man who started the program in Berkeley, said “I’ve never been part of something like this where the power of an idea has grabbed so many people so quickly. It is viral.” Not only California has helped families pay for the solar panels, states like Texas, Arizona and Virginia has also passed laws to help them. But out of all the states that have these laws, Palm Desert in California is the farthest along.

Opinion: I think that what these states are doing is an amazing thing. Alternative energy is going to be a huge part of our future, but there is one thing stopping it from taking off. And that is the issue of money. But with these laws that help families pay for the solar panels, the alternative energy future could become more and more of a reality. I have always thought that solar panels were a really cool thing, and I have always wanted them on my house, but PA does not help families pay for the panels. I wish that in the future all states help families or companies pay for solar panels. If that does happen, our reliability on fossil fuels will go down, and so will our air pollution in our country. My biggest wish for our country is that we get off of relying on fossil fuels, and rely more on alternative energy.

Questions

1.      Why do you think PA does not help families or companies pay for solar panels?

2.      What is your opinion on fossil fuels and alternative energy?

3.      Would you want to have solar panels on your house or company? Why or Why not?                

Air Pollution - California Smog

California smog threatens world’s oldest living things, the giant redwoods

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/travel/california-smog-threatens-worlds-oldest-living-things-the-giant-redwoods/2012/05/28/gJQAg6mpwU_story.html

By: Associated Press

May 28, 2012

Picture: This picture shows the damage the smog in Sequoia is already causing to a pine tree. 

Summary: The California forest, home to the biggest and oldest Sequoia Redwoods, currently has the worst air pollution our of any national park in the United States. Emily Schrepf of the nonprofit advocacy group the National Park Conservation Association describes the forest, saying, “Ozone levels here are comparable to urban settings such as LA.” The forest has signs warning visitors when it is unsafe to hike, and the government employment site warns the job applicants that the workplace is unhealthy. Also, each year, the workers in the park are briefed on the pollution, and the lung and heart damage it can cause. Annie Esperanza, a park scientist, says, “If this is happening in a national park that isn’t even close to an urban area, what do you think is happening in your backyard?” Many of the closely monitored national parks do not compare to the severity of air pollution Sequoia and its neighbor, Kings Canyon, has. When the sun’s rays hit pollutants, such as oxides of nitrogen and volatile organic compounds that can be found in fertilizers, pesticides, etc, smog is created. Even though it’s only early into the summer ozone season, the level of ozone in Sequoia park has exceeded federal health standards already. Last year in the June to September summer, the park had violations 87 times. Esperanza says, “It’s tragic that the National Park Service is known for clean air, and then you see a sign saying it’s unhealthy to breathe; It’s so contrary to the national parks idea.”

Opinion: After reading this article, I realized how much damage humans are causing on our environment. The trees in the park are thousands of years old, and many people come to see them. It’s a shame to see the park reach unhealthy air pollution levels, and I don’t even want to know the damage the air pollution could be causing on these trees that have been around for an extremely long time. When I hear the word park, I think of a clean, pollution free area. To hear that it’s unhealthy to breathe air in the California forest, and that is can potentially cause serious health issues is tragic. The smog described in the article reminds me of the deadly smog we read about in science class. These are both smogs, and I wonder if the smog and air pollution in the forest in California is caused by the same reasons the deadly smog were caused (thermal inversions, or burning things). I hope something is done to help stop and reduce air pollution. I always knew air pollution was harming our environment, but to actually read about it in this article made me realize how bad air pollution is. 

Questions:

1) What does the smog/air pollution do that causes this damage on the trees in the forest?

2) In what ways can air pollution be reduced or completely removed, if any? If there are any, why aren't people trying to use these methods to stop air pollution and improve air quality?

3) Has the California forest always been the most polluted national park in the US? If not, then what park used to be more polluted, and how did the California forest become so polluted?

Air Pollution Effects

Article: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/15/air-pollution-tied-to-heart-and-brain-risks/

Picture: This picture shows air pollution in the United States. Even though in some states the air pollution is decreasing, overall it is still pretty bad.

Summary: We have all heard the risks of air pollution, but no one seems to take them seriously. But new studies show that the more people are exposed to the air pollution, the higher the chances are for stroke, heart disease and cognitive deterioration. In one study done nationwide, it was shown that over 20,000 women that breathed in polluted area for over a decade experienced quicker memory loss and attention span problems. In another study done in Boston, on the days where the traffic pollutants went up, so did the risk of stroke. Even when the federal air quality index said the air was moderate, the risk of stroke was still there, pointing out that even “moderate” pollution is not good for our health. Gregory A. Wellenius, an associate professor of epidemiology at Brown University and lead author of the study linking pollution to stroke said “At levels that the Environmental Protection Agency says are safe, we’re seeing real health effects.” The long term effects of air pollution are clear, but studies and scientists are still trying to pin point the short term effects of air pollution. Some of the common pollutants such as carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide also greatly increase your risk of heart disease.

Opinion: This article was eye opening for me. I knew the short term risks of pollution that we learn in class, but I never really thought about all the long term effects. I knew that headaches, nausea and trouble breathing could happen because of pollution, but again I never really thought about the long term effects like risk of stroke, heart disease and cognitive deterioration. What also scared me was that the federal air quality index could say that the air pollution was moderate one day, but the risks of the long term effects could still be there. All of the studies done out in our country basically say the same thing, which our air quality is bad and we need to find ways to reduce it very soon. I know that I need to pay more attention to the long term effects of pollution and I’m guessing so do a lot of people in our country do too.

1. What is an achievable goal for the amount of air pollution that we reduce?

2. Why are finding short term effects of air pollution so hard?

3. What is so bad about the small particles of air pollution?

4. If our air pollution were to decrease, do you think we would still have health risks because the air could still be contaminated? Why or why not?

Wind Energy in Hawaii

New Wind Energy Project Roots in Hawaii

By: Tami Hood

Published in hydrogenfuelnews.com on May 23, 2012

Article: http://www.hydrogenfuelnews.com/new-wind-energy-project-takes-root-hawaii/853816/
Picture: http://venturebeat.com/2010/03/05/hawaiian-wind-project-bags-117m-stimulus-loan-guarantee/  

Picture: This is a picture of a wind farm in Hawaii. It is right near the ocean so it gets a large amount of wind. Hawaii is a great location for wind farms, especially the project mentioned in the article. 

Summary: Two alternative energy companies, Sempra US Gas & Power and BP Wind Energy, are collaborating on a new energy project that will take place in Maui, Hawaii. This project is supposed to help the US transition from fossil fuels to other alternative energy sources. This project will be using wind energy and will welcome future wind energy plans to the US. Eight wind turbines will be purchased from the Maui Electric Company and placed in Southeastern Maui. “The wind farm will cover 120 acres of land and generate 21 megawatts of electricity, enough to power 10,000 homes in Maui.” The project will also decrease energy costs in Hawaii significantly. Energy prices are higher in Hawaii than in the mainland because Hawaii is so removed from the rest of the US. If Hawaii can produce its own energy through these wind turbines, the cost of their energy will go down a lot. This project will also allow for many jobs for people who are unemployed. The low prices and the employment for this project will really help boost Hawaii’s economy. Hawaii’s goal is to generate no less than 40% of their electricity from renewable sources by the year 2030. This project will definitely allow this state to reach their goal. Along with this project, they have invested in hydrogen fuel cells and solar energy to help them accomplish goal. The use of wind energy in Hawaii is a great idea and will hopefully spread to the mainland if it is successful in Hawaii.

Opinion: This article is a great example of just one of the ways that the US is moving towards renewable energy sources. Although the US is still strongly relying on fossil fuels, we are starting to take the step in the right direction. I think that wind energy is a great renewable energy source to start the switch with. It is not that costly and it is very reliable. This article was interesting because I never knew that energy prices were higher in Hawaii because they are farther away from the mainland. I think Hawaii is a great place to start the major transition to renewable energy sources. This project alone could power 10,000 homes. That is amazing. I think that every state should start projects like this one, which is being held in Hawaii. We could power so many homes just with wind power. This connects to what we learned in class because we talked about the use of alternative energy sources. Wind power was one of the ideas we talked about. There are many pros to wind power such as the wind is free, it does not create waste or greenhouse gases, the land around the winds farms can still be used for farming and the wind farms attract tourists. The only cons for wind power are opinions like the turbines are noisy and unsightly. Wind power could be a great way to power the US. It could help replace the coal that we are using up so quickly. We are going to run out of fossil fuels eventually, so we need to start figuring out and trying new ways to get our energy before we run on empty on these environment-harming fossil fuels. This project in Hawaii could be the first step to trying new energy ideas.

Questions:

1.     In your opinion, is wind power a good idea for the rest of the US, besides Hawaii? Why or why not?

2.     What other states are using wind power? Is it working well in these areas?

3.     Could the US switch to wind power completely or would we have to use multiple sources of alternative energy? Why and what other sources could we use?

4.     Should the government force other states to participate in projects like this one? Why or why not?

Study: ‘Fracking’ may increase air pollution health risks

By: Neela Banerjee

Article- http://articles.latimes.com/2012/mar/20/local/la-me-gs-fracking-increases-air-pollution-health-risks-to-residents-20120320

Picture- http://www.earthyreport.com/site/air-pollution-from-fracking-sites-linked-to-health-risks/fracking-4/

This is a well that is leaking out fumes. When an area has a lot of fracking going on, the amount of fumes being put into the air can be very dangerous to some ones health.

Article: In a new study by the Colorado school of Public Health, people who live near natural gases drilling site are likely to have chronic health problems. The Colorado School monitored sites in Colorado for three years and found multiple “potentially toxic petroleum hydrocarbons in the air near the wells including benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene and xylene.” The EPA collected data from Garfield County in Colorado which has undergone a sharp increase of drilling from January 2008 to November 2010. The data from the study showed that people who are exposed to petroleum hydrocarbons (from the drilling) for a prolong periods of time are at an increase risk of headaches and irritations of the eyes, acute childhood and myelongenous leukemia, asthma symptoms, and multiple myeloma. The EPA is trying to finalize the air pollution problem at oil and drilling sites by seeing tighter regulation of fracking.

Opinion: This article was very interesting and I think it is awful that people are being affected by fracking. I remember watching a video in class about people becoming sick from drilling sites near their homes. Though those people became sick through their drinking water, the drill sites stills affected their lives. This is a big problem for not only people but the environment too. When animals start to take in the polluted air, they also become sick and possibly die. I am glad to hear that the EPA is starting to make rules for the drilling companies.  It’s good to know that they are doing something to help the plant and its creatures. This connects to my life because if one day I live in an area with a natural gas drill, I want be healthy and not become sick. Plus I want my future environments to be as healthy as possible. Drilling not only effects the life of others and animals but the country as a whole.

Questions:

11)      What other ways can we as a country do to fix this air pollution problem?

22)      How are the drilling companies fixing this problem?

33)      Is there a cleaner way to drill for natural gas?

This picture shows different pollutants and indexes compared to the United States and the  state of Washington.

This picture shows
how the air would look
smokey when highly
polluted with pollutants




This picture shows
the pollution being sent
out into the air from
wood burning stoves in
the home.

SUMMARY Yakima has shown to be the area with second worst air quality in the state after Tacoma. This has been found and shown by a state Department of Ecology analysis. In sixth place was Wenatchee, not being much better with their air quality and amount of air pollution. In the winter of 2011 Wenatchee had a period of 42 days where their air quality was in high and unhealthy levels. This duration ranged from October 1^st to March 31^st. Including the four winters before this one, there were 32 day periods where the air quality was highly polluted and unhealthy. This period was shown to be the time when most woodstoves are used. Redfield-Wilder, an ecology spokesperson states that the air quality is constantly decreasing even after attempts were made to decrease the amount of outdoor burning, winter wood smoke, and diesel emissions. She says that they are getting to a point where it can have harmful impacts on the health of citizens. The source from where most of the pollution in Wenatchee comes from is woodstoves. Redfield-Wilder also states that the reason the fine particle pollution in the air is so high in Wenatchee because of smoke getting trapped in the valley more easily, because of the fact that it is a very narrow and long valley. Fine particle pollution can be very harmful to health because of all the side effects it can cause in humans. It gets deep into the lungs and it is similar to smoking cigarettes. Fine particle pollution is the cause of an estimated 1,100 deaths, and $190 million used in health care cost in the state of Washington yearly. The area of Wenatchee reported having a fine particle measurement of just less than 30 micrograms per cubic meter of air.

  

OPINION:

After reading this article I am very surprised on how bad air pollution can get, and I never knew that air quality has been measured and areas have been put into a ranking system of lowest air quality. I actually had never even heard of Wenatchee, and that the main source of pollution is wood stoves. It seems kind of odd to me that something like wood stoves would be such a high source of pollution while industrial factories and burning of fuels isn’t at the same level of pollution. I think that maybe different types of pollutions are measured differently and for that reason this area has shown to be the worst in air pollution and air quality. This specific idea of air pollution caused by burning reminds of the negative impacts we learned about fossil fuels in class. It seems to compare to coal that we learned is the dirtiest of all fossil fuels and produces large amounts of pollution compared to oil and natural gas. I find it very upsetting that people in these areas are not realizing that they are putting their own health and the health of others around them at risk due to air quality. I would think that air is something that we live on, and people would at least think or care to maintain health and high air quality and less on making money off these different types of energy sources. I think that Wenatchee sets a good example to other states and cities on how critical having bad air pollution can get. To think that just breathing in “fresh air” is like smoking a cigarette, I personally would not even want to step outside of my house. I think it is ridiculous that when we want to go outside to get some fresh air and help our bodies, we are actually harming ourselves.

QUESTIONS
1) Why is wood stove burning such a big pollution source? How do they work and what chemicals/pollutants do they release that cause the air to become so polluted, and if this is known then why are people still using the wood stoves?

2) Why is Wenatchee more polluted in air quality then metropolitan areas where there are constant uses of fuel, and factories?

3) What would you do if you were living in Wenatchee and had no way to leave? How big of an impact would this have on you? Would you take some kind of action, and if yes, what would you do?

4) How far down on the list of poor air quality is our state of Pennsylvania? Is our air quality bad whatsoever compared to the air quality of Yakima, and Wenatchee? If so, how can we decrease or prevent this?

5) Can wood stove burning be replaced by any other source that would not pollute the environment? Is there a way government could step in and enforce citizens to decrease the amount of pollutants they are putting in the air? 

Genetically Modified Crops in Africa

http://sitemaker.umich.edu/sec006group5/gm_food

http://blogs.cfr.org/coleman/2012/04/12/genetically-modified-crops-and-africas-agricultural-potential/

By: Isobel Coleman

Kate Hollenbeck 

Summary: Genetically Modified crops is a one of the newest ways that people are starting to fight hunger. Calestous Juma is a Harvard graduate and now the Agricultural Innovation in Africa Project, which specializes on bringing genetically modified crops to the starving people of Africa. Juma once said in an interview “that the future will place greater demands on agriculture due to population growth and climate change, and genetically modified crops are an important option for meeting future needs.” People used to think that the crops would actually cause harm on the environment, and not help anyone out, but that was proved wrong. The crops are actually mostly raised by ‘small resource-poor farmers” and the fact that the crops are pest-resistant is helping out dramatically. The farmers are having to pay less for pesticides which are saving them much needed money. Some of these crops are also drought resistant, and that is a huge help to the farmers that live in extremely dry places. These crops are also helping the environment by being able to be “no-till agriculture”. This means that the farmers do not have to dig up weeds in the soil that usually causes carbon dioxide to be released into the air. Juma also noted that “With herbicides that kill weeds but not crops, the labor required for weeding drops significantly, boosting productivity. In Africa, the typical farmer, who is a woman, spends 200 hours per hectare per year weeding.” That is huge because the women can care for the children instead of weeding all day.

Opinion: I thought that this article was eye-opening. I had no idea what was going on with the genetically modified crops these days. This article reminds me of a story my dad told me about something called “dwarf corn”. It was another genetically modified crop, but I had not heard anything about it since my dad told me that story years ago. One thing that I do not understand is why modifying crops was so controversial 15 years ago. All I hear about and read about is how helpful these crops are to third world countries. Places that have very dry soil and weeds everywhere are being able to grow their own food now, and that is huge. The fact that women do not have to spend all day weeding will help the children because they will be getting the care that they need.

1.      What do you think of genetically modified crops? Is it good or bad for the environment?

2.      What are some of the specific crops that are being modified?

3.      What are some positive and negative effects that genetically enhancing cause?