Annotated bibliography #5 Uranium info

World nuclear association June 2006. What is uranium? How does it work? retrieved April 13th 2010 from www.world-nuclear.org

This is an interesting source about uranium, which is used to create nuclear energy. It gets into pretty technical details about how the process works on the atomic level but explains it simply enough that a careful reader can understand. It also explains how uranium goes from the mines to becoming a nuclear fuel. After that it talks about nuclear power, who uses it and some of the benefits. It also talks about where we get the uranium we need and the other not so peaceful uses of uranium. I think it is a good source but I would be sure to consider it to have a pro nuclear bias.

Human contribution to the greenhouse effect

I have been reading about a really interesting debate going on in the study of climate change. Apparently some people don't see water vapor as worthy of mentioning in the debate on global climate change. An interesting exemption considering most scientists agree that water vapor accounts for 65% to 99% of the greenhouse effect. There is little agreement on the exact percent so I apologize for the huge difference, but pretty much everyone I could find agrees that it is the main greenhouse gas. In fact, the EPA had expressed interest in having water vapor classified as a pollutant admitting that it is the primary greenhouse gas, and seeks to tax water vapor emissions from human activities. These human activities are of course insignificant when compared to the massive amount of ocean water that evaporates every day. I guess the question becomes whether our contributions of other greenhouse gases such as CO2 and methane are causing a significant and unnatural change in our atmosphere. In my opinion (which is in no way credible) the effects of such gases seem to be overstated, especially when you take into account the fact that the majority of CO2 emission is natural, and the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have fluctuated wildly as far back as we can see. Interesting topic, good luck finding an impartial source though. For a fun exersize go to the EPA website and try and find anything more than a brief mention of water vapor as a greenhouse gas. Notice how everything says greenhouse gas "emissions."
www.epa.gov

Annotated bibliography #4 carbon capture and storage

K., Noothout, P., Hekkert, M., & Turkenburg, W. (2010). Evaluating the development of carbon capture and storage technologies in the United States. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 14(3), 971-986. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2009.10.028.

In this publication the development of carbon capture and storage technology is explained. It is really long and dense. It has a lot of good facts and charts. This probably has just about everything you need to know about carbon capture and storage. I don’t know enough about the topic to be able to say whether or not it is bias and can only say that it seems pretty scientific.

Response to Henry David Thoreau

I thought the first half of this essay was pretty good. The second half I had no idea what he was talking about. I agree with Thoreau a lot more than Wendell Berry. I definitely hold similar views to Thoreau about problems in our society and our culture. But I think when he starts rambling about how we could just stop building railroads he starts going downhill. I wish he would focus a little more, I really don’t know what his overall point is. I wish I could just talk to him face to face, because I think he has a lot of smart things to say. I just don’t understand this essay.

Chart showing the nuclear power generation of different countries

This chart shows the top ten nuclear energy producing countries. Most people don't realize that we are number one, especially since there are countries like France which now get the majority of their power from reactors. But we have to remember that France is not only much smaller than we are but doesn't have close the industrial demand for fossil fuels that we do. Even if we only get 20% of our electricity from nuclear sources that is still a lot more than France's 78%.

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energy_in_brief/images/charts/nuclear_generation_countries.gif

Response to my BP energy calculater result

My result was 42337 kWh/yr. I guess that isn't too bad. I wonder how accurate that thing even is. I know I leave the lights on too much.

Response to Max's response to Wendell Berry

"I can but agree with Wendell Berry. Of course, a growth of technology is important for our life, but we shouldn’t merge fully to it. I think, sometimes we should reject computers or cars and remember how perfectly to live without technologies."

I totally agree with Max. I can also appreciate the point Berry made about not letting technology make us weak. But I agree with Max a lot more when he says we can use technology and at the same time appreciate the other parts of life. I think his response to Berry's essay is thoughtful and on point.

Annotated bibliography#3 OPEC world oil outlook

Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) 2009. The World Oil Outlook 2009. retrieved April 6th 2010 from www.opec.org

OPECS world oil outlook or WOO is a publication that can be found on OPEC’s website www.opec.org. It is full of speculations and predictions about the world’s economy and the price of oil. It goes all the way up to 2030 and makes all kinds of predictions about the price of oil as well as the GDP’s of different countries. I defiantly find the source to be bias, but it has a lot of good information in it which it has gathered from a variety of sources.

The sun is a non-renewable resource

The sun is estimated to be about 4.5 billion years old. It is basically a giant nuclear reactor. Every second of its existence it converts 700,000,000 tons of hydrogen into 695,000,000 tons of helium. This is nuclear fusion, and it produces the suns energy. The sun produces energy at 386 "yottawatts" per second. Which is 386 billion billion megawatts. The sun is expected to keep it up for about another 5 billion years. When I was researching nuclear power I found an interesting fact, there is said to be enough uranium in the earth that we could cost effectively extract 16,500 tons of it per year for 5 billion years before running out. So we have enough uranium in the earth to power ourselves for as long as the sun is expected to support life. And when you think about it, once the earth gets sucked into the sun there will be no wind or hydro-electric power either. So if nuclear power is not going to be called "renewable" then neither is solar. I prefer we all start using the term "not going to run out any time soon" energy.

www.nineplanets.org

Peak-oil theory

Many people believe that the earth's petroleum supply is drying up. The peak-theory is the theory that we have already, or will soon reach the peak of our ability to find and use oil. And once we are done riding out this peak of consumption, our supply is going to go down until it is so depleted that the industrial world as we know it will collapse. Since we have no way of making more oil (and actually don't fully understand where oil comes from) it is fair to say that this will happen one day. The question is when will it happen, and what can we do to prepare for it. Neither of those questions are easy to answer. The fact of the matter is no one really knows how much oil is left in the earth. Some "experts" say that we have another 50 years before we will no longer have enough oil to support ourselves, and others say we have enough to last another 600 years. Normally I would assume the truth would be somewhere in-between, but when it comes down to it people are just guessing. And one guess is as good as another.

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_sum_sndw_dcus_nus_w.htm

Response to Wendell Berry's essay

I have just spent an hour and a half reading Wendell Berry’s essay. I feel like I just got back from a long, exhausting walk through the fluffy cliché forest. While I was on my walk, I was accompanied by an annoying, self-righteous madman who violated my patience repeatedly. He began by saying that any discussion about the use of energy is a discussion about religion. Unfortunately he lost me there, I am a godless heathen savage who has no concept of such things. So like taking candy from a baby he went on to educate my simple mind about how he was right and the rest of the world was wrong.

Well nice try Wendell Berry, because you really just made me angry and convinced me that you are totally out of your mind. My biggest regret is that I had to sit here and subject myself to your essay, but you wont have to read my response to it.

In this essay he rants about how we are destroying nature with our machines, and how we cannot restrain ourselves, and we ought to be more like nature with its “life cycles.” Well first of all, it is awfully condescending toward the nature you revere to consider yourself above it. As though we are the gods of this world, and the helpless earth is at our mercy. And second, those life cycles that he referred too are not quite as tender and fair as he might think. Because, outside of the flowery fluffy forest that Mr. Berry lives in there is the real forest, where the laws of nature reign supreme, and where the weak moose gets ripped apart by wolves while it is still breathing. I make no distinction between the “natural” and “unnatural” world. Humans were created by nature, we need it, and always have needed it, to exist. The natural world is totally uncompromising; it is as insensitive and overly practical as the machines Mr. Berry hates so much. These are the things which nature rewards: efficiency, adaptability, and strength. And sometimes, the winner may not be the most intelligent, as evidenced by the success of the cockroach. There doesn’t need to be any reason for it, it just has to work. In his essay Mr. Berry gives us this pearl of wisdom “If people are regarded as machines, they must be regarded as replaceable by other machines. They are regarded, in other words, as dispensable. Their place on the farm is safe only as long as they are mechanically necessary.” Right, as opposed to nature which is forgiving and appreciates the fine arts over efficiency. I could write a book about all of the things I see as unfair and ridiculous about this essay, but I don’t want to get carried away. So I am just going to make one last point. In the ongoing grind of mans existence through time, our “nature” has been defined by our environment. While we may not have to compete rigorously with other animals (at least not anymore) we do have to compete with one another for finite space and resources. If we were all to become Amish in America, someone more industrial would kill us and take our things. Or even worse, they would put us on ships and take us somewhere to be slaves. The Amish utopia described by Wendell Berry is only allowed to exist, and he is only allowed to write about it, because of our technological excellence. Our people can be fed much more efficiently, and using much less land and energy, by high tech agriculture than by the primitive lifestyle he describes. And I for one am thankful for that, because now I can go to school and strive to do more than plant tomatoes and argue with mules all day.

Annotated bibliography #2 Nuclear Power

“Nuclear Energy.” March 31^st 2000. Issues & Controversies On File. Retrieved April 1^st 2010, from Issues & Controversies database.

“Nuclear Energy” is an online source published by Facts on File. It is extremely informative about the different issues surrounding nuclear energy and I have found it to be very helpful. It presents various issues in a fair and objective manner, making it easy for the reader to get a basic but solid understanding of the controversies surrounding nuclear power. The topics, which are discussed in varying levels of detail, are as follows:

· The Atomic Age

· Triumph and Troubles

· Nuclear Energy Today

· Nuclear Fuel: Cheap and Plentiful

· Is Nuclear Energy 'Green'?

· Dangers Alleged

· The Nuclear Waste Challenge

· How Bright Is Nuclear Energy's Future?

This source includes many interesting facts, statistics, quotes and paraphrases from advocates and professionals who are both for and against nuclear power. I highly recommend it.

Note: this is available through our accounts on the consortium libraries website

Galena's problem

http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/advanced/4s.html

Galena is a remote town on the Yukon River which survives on fossil fuels that are barged and flown in at very high costs. Roughly a third of all their heat is produced by burning wood. Imagine relying on an ax and a woodstove in a town where temperatures can get down to negative fifty degrees. Galena’s problem isn’t really all that unique as far as rural Alaska goes, many of these remote towns and villages are just so small that it is impractical to build multimillion dollar power plants, pipelines, mines and so forth. What makes Galena unique is not the problem but what they may be doing to solve it.

Toshiba, a Japanese company, has offered to install a twenty five million dollar nuclear reactor free of charge. This reactor is said to be capable of powering Galena for thirty years without recharging and with relatively no maintenance. It is called the Toshiba 4S, the four S’s stand for Super-Safe, Small and Simple. This is a small underground reactor which is cooled with liquid sodium. It would be barged in from Japan and lowered ninety eight feet into the ground into a sealed cylindrical vault, inside of a small nondescript building. Toshiba has offered to install it free as a demonstration of their technology.

This reactor (assuming it works properly) would certainly make life easier for the people of Galena, whose electricity bills can reach into the thousands. Most people avoid using electricity as much as possible because it is simple too expensive. Worrying less about energy would leave them free to pursue other things and make everything cheaper, which would encourage new businesses and economic growth. The Galena city council has already approved of and accepted Toshiba’s offer, but it still has a long and bureaucratic approval process before it can be installed. If the plan is approved than Galena may be enjoying this new power by 2012.