Yucca Mountain?

A 58 billion dollar project plans to house 77,000 tons of nuclear refuse at Yucca Mountain located in the Nevada desert. It is said that radioactive materials can be responsibly and securely tucked away in the mountain for 10,000 years. Now I don’t know about you but I feel like there are better solutions to this problem. My main concern involves the fact that although Yucca Mountain may be in the desert it is still only 90 miles away from Las Vegas, Nevada. As we all know Las Vegas is a popular area for tourists, gamblers, and entertainment. With this said Yucca Mountain being only 90 miles away, Las Vegas may experience an increase in pollution mainly within the water supply. Is putting this nuclear waste here really a good idea? Other concerns involve the risks of terrorists as well as transporting this nuclear waste. Transporting nuclear waste can be very dangerous if accidents were to occur, and is it worth putting people at risk to re-transport this waste? Some ideas of transporting this waste to the moon have come up in conversation but this could be very dangerous as well as expensive. One thing for sure is that the waste issue involved with nuclear energy is limiting the nuclear power development.

World’s Most Polluted Places

After reading an article titled “The Top 10 Worst Polluted Places on Earth” by Larry West I realized how vulnerable to health risks some people actually are. Much of this simply deals with the location in which they live. Serious risk for cancer, respiratory diseases, and premature death are common health concerns these people live with. The Top 10 worst polluted places in the world account for about ten million people at risk of health problems in eight different countries.
The most and worst polluted area, according to the Blacksmith Institute, unsurprisingly is Chernobyl, Ukraine. We all know what happened in Chernobyl in 1986 and this explains why health risks are so high in this area. Still to this day there are environmental problems due to the radiation. Dzerzhinsk, Russia appears on our list at #2. Out of our “top 10” Russia accumulates three spots on the list with Norilsk, Russia holding #8 and Rudnaya Pristan/Dalnegorsk, Russia at #10. Other hot spots include Ranipet, India at #9 for its ground water pollution, Haina, Dominican Republic for its lead contamination and Linfen, China. We all know China is in the midst of its industrial revolution accumulating for its industrial air pollution which is also causing serious health concerns. The rest of the list accounts for Kabwe, Zambia at #4, La Oroya, Peru at #5, Maiuu Suu, Kyrgyzstan at #7, and Norilsk, Russia at #8.
After habituating in these areas for long enough likely health risks involve cancers, lung infections and mental retardation. Life expectancies in these places are very short compared to some of the richest nations and health problems persist to everyone in danger. The question is how can we clean up these places?

Climate chan

In the New York Times science section there was an article on global warming. It stated that On Feb. 2, 2007, the United Nations scientific panel studying climate change declared that the evidence of a warming trend is "unequivocal," and that human activity has "very likely" been the driving force in that change over the last 50 years. The last report by the group, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in 2001, had found that humanity had "likely" played a role. With such groups as 350, we are able to help control our effects on the climate. And we can see that our use of gasses such as greenhouse gasses, which harm our atomosphere are being used less and less.

The special period in Cuba

From the Video on Cuba.
In 1991, the economic crisis began in Cuba after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
This period was very difficult in early-to-mid 1990's because Cuba was short of gasoline, diesel, and other oils. To successfully come out of this period, it was necessary to farm and produce food to survive.They stopped the use of automobiles.
After the collapse Cuba lost a large amount almost 80% of its imports and exports. It included the food and medicines imports and oil. Before the collapse of Soviet Union
the availability of oil was a lot. Cuba did not use human power or animal power in the fields, they used tractors, combines, and harvesters. This machinery ran on oil. When this period came they could not use these machines anymore because of the shortage of oil. Food, fertilizers, pesticide, and transportation was going down because all of these things are manufactured with oil. When this special period started Australian and other permaculturists arrived to Cuba and gave out aid and taught their techniques. Cuban started to use these techniques in fields and they soon grew food.
Cuba went through energy famine. They had black outs for many hours and had to wait for a bus for three hours. People lost a lot of weight because of starvation. They stated to use solar energy.
People started to grow food in the gardens. Soon meat and dairy products were not seen in the Cuban diet. They grew and had more vegetables and fruits, which they sold to the local farmers' markets and used for themselves.
It was hard to adjust to new ways instead of using cars to school,work, or anywhere else, people walked, took buses, used bikes, used animals as transportation, and used pubic transportation: cars used as taxis, in trucks canopies and steps were added. Education and medical care became free at that time. People worked and helped each other to successfully come out of this period.
We already know we will reach at this point sooner or later. We learn a lot from these Cuban how they got out of this famine. We should start now. United States is bigger then Cuba. We also know it's hard to recover that soon in US like Cuban did. But if we start now, in future we can be also successful in saving the people from starving,we need to learn the techniques of farming, and other thing to survive in these conditions. We do not have much time left for us to just wait for that time to come. The people and the government needs to work together and prepare fast.

"Cuba and the rest of the world on peak oil crisis"

Cuba is a country where it is much closer to the equator, Cubans who live there are innate to their surroundings. If you take a cuban and tell them to turn off all the lights in their apartment and they tell other cubans to do so..they will intervene. Other the hand if you tell all the Americans in the world to do the same thing..they are going to say, "Well we are paying for it, why does it matter." People in North America do not realize the need for conserving electricity or other type of energy. Some may but the majority are innate to being dependent on other countries and just energy. We don't see as many people in the US gardening, foraging, cultivating or raising livestock and food to feed their families. It may be inevitable to do so in cold climates in North America but in other parts of the US this is possible. For example, California, Florida, Texas, Arizona, and other warm parts of the US. People are lazy and they are born into a society that is all dependent on supermarkets and other means of supplies that we get either from other manufacturers or countries. It's sad to say that we as individuals cant do this but we need to change our ways. Cubans farm in their backyards, and most of their food comes from their gardens. The only thing that they have to probably buy from the supermarket is the rice. They ride bicycles and walk or take public transportation to get to where they need to be. In the capitals or big towns in Cuba, people have places to hang out. For example, they have places to play soccer for the children across the street, the corner store is a block away, the school is within walking distances, but for people who live in the country side have the option to spend more time to get to the nearest town or capital. The funny thought about it is that they do it anyway. If an american were to walk 5 miles to the nearest store they would not do it and ride in a car which is understandable because we have cars to it with, but Cubans ride bikes, walk, take the bus, or take the motorcycle. It's not too late to change our ways but people in America need to STOP BEING SO LAZY. I bet that Cubans work harder than the average American. This is how Cuba survived the oil crisis. They relied on solar powered panels and wind mills to generate energy for electricity. They also used sugar or food wastes to generate the powered plants for energy. They also used crude oil which is environmentally dangerous but this is how Cuba responded to the oil crisis.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAxt4zURigk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_sO766Tfhg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwPnmaUt8x0

Peak Oil & Gm foods

First of all, kudos to Tesla motors for their prerseverance and ingenuity. The tesla roadster is a giant leap for cleaner, greener automobiles.

That said, people in the US, and other developed countries, have generally grown accustomed to the level of lifestyle and prosperity that we currently enjoy. I think that it would be rather difficult to try to convince people in developed nations to try to adopt a "cuban-style" approach to solving environmental problems and peak oil as is shown in the film "How Cuba survived Peak Oil".

Of course, waiting for the event to occur is absurd. If people want to maintain their 1st -world lifestyles, we need to start acting now to deal with peak oil in the future. Renewable energies, biofuels, and similar technologies are what we are, and undoubtedly should, be investing in right NOW. And of course, research into technologies such as cold fusion, microwaves, etc. By making these sacrifices now we can potentially decrease the effects that peak oil will have on us when it occurs (worldwide).
The fact is that we are so used to using our automobiles, I feel that people will be more interested in pursuing biofuel and even electric cars since in the end, no one wants to be left without a functioning car. (unless you live in NYC where mass transit is readily available).

Also to point out, the specialization is an effect of human evolution. The fact that only 5% of US population are farmers means that the remaining 95% are devoted to other tasks. While we cannot forget how important food is, we should bear in mind that everything is almost just as important. We want our cars, cheap air travel, internet communications, and every else to be functioning. We can also hope that by training physicists, scientists, and engineers and putting them into agencies like NASA, we will have access to new resources in 50-100 years.

Another thing to bring up- about the genetically modified foods and how 'organic farming' has none of that. Yes, there are many risks in genetically modified organisms of any kind, and these risks are especially profound when you happen to be eating the very thing you modified. But I have to point this out- gm foods are going to be necessary in the future to sustain the world's population, to survive adverse new climactic conditions and new viruses. Many opponents keep saying that gm foods are 'poisonous', 'toxic', 'can cause mutations' and other accusations. But aren't we a constantly evolving species? We learned to live with all kinds of new technologies in the past two hundred years, I'm sure we are going to eventually get accustomed to genetically modified foods one day. . . although the EU may disagree
. . . the first time you try a poison its poisonous. But after many times in small quantities, you become immune.

Cuba and farming

I read an article about Cuba and there farming on cnn.com and there was a quote that said "The industrialized world can learn that its dependency on oil will eventually push it through similar experiences to that which Cuba had to face in the 1990's, and with similar outcomes," says Julia Wright, author of "Sustainable Agriculture and Food Security in an Era of Oil Scarcity: Lessons from Cuba." I found this very intersting since many places have hit their peak oil and should decided to take actions now before its to late.

Organic farming is the future

The most recent documentary we viewed in class on Cuba was extremely enlightening to me. While we have been discussing peak oil and what will happen in America in class, it never occurred to me that some countries have already dealt with this problem. The way that Cuba was able to adapt to a lifestyle that was not dependent on oil was truly eye opening to me. I never fully understood the purpose and importance of organic farming in the United States but now have found that is it something that interests me.
Organic farming decreases an individuals dependence on foreign oil, putting the power back into their hands. The benefits from organic farming are tremendous, they not only break us from the chains of oil but promote healthy lifestyles. The food that is grown is not genetically modified and does not contain chemicals from pesticides and fertilizers. People who run organic farms are doing a great deal of physical work, which increases physical well being as well.
Its clear from the situation in Cuba that organic farming is a sustainable and beneficial process. I believe that it is imperative for the United States to start making a shift toward organic use and give incentives for people who start their own farm or volunteer. Personally the documentary and this class as a whole has sparked my interest in this field and I’m seriously considering looking further into it.

The “Cuba” Video Preaches Sustainability and Change in Lifestyle

From the video “Cuba” that we watched in class it’s clear that peak oil is imminent all over the world. It’s only a matter of time before the Middle East oil fields are pumped dry and our country, dependent on oil imports becomes devastated, both economically and socially. We cannot let our fate be dependent on a foreign resource that we cannot control (even though we try to with our armed forces). We must begin to take steps on the big scale level and small scale. Our government must step in and begin efforts to change where we get our energy from. We must invest on a large scale in solar, and wind energies to provide us with our energy. If we can do this we can drastically cut our dependency on oil supply and create more jobs in these industries. We need to avoid the collapse that occurred in Cuba. We cannot sit around and wait for the crisis to occur, we must be proactive. The video showed us how it will be necessary for food to be locally grown; I believe there will be a large dependency on local farms to provide us with our fresh fruits and vegetables. Farming will be a revived trade, more respected. I believe that America has the capabilities to change its ways, it is really a matter of changing the way people think. Many of the old men we’ve elected to congress are set in their ways, not willing to try change. Their large campaign contributions from corporations related to oil don’t help. We must begin to elect innovative thinkers, people that believe in global warming and shifting our energy resources. We also need to begin to make efforts on the personal level. We need to make changes in our everyday lives. Change our energy consumption in small steps. Auto industries need to begin to produce battery powered cars on a large scale like Tesla Motors. The company is coming out with 3 all electric car models in 2011 with ZERO emissions. The company also encourages its costumers to utilize new solar panels as a way of charging these cars and reducing our nation’s dependency on foreign oil. Granted these solutions are not easy or cheap but we must begin to invest in our future today. Not tomorrow.

Sources:

http://www.teslamotors.com/learn_more/foreign_oil.php

Heinberg, Fusion Power, and debates

So, while reading Heinberg, I came across his section on Fusion Power. To put it mildly, it seems to me that his opinions on fusion and cold fusion power are detrimental, to say the least. He completely throws away the issue and refers to it basically as "science fiction".

Muller, in Chapter 23, also states his belief that fusion power is a long way off and that we should not be counting on it. He writes that we have always been waiting for twenty years for fusion power to become commercially available, and then it hasn't (since the 1950s). Greenpeace even stated that "Governments should not waste our money on a dangerous toy which will never deliver any useful energy".

I think that this is the wrong attitude. The entire purpose of science is to discover new technologies for us and not limit us to the use of current technologies, also known as "renewables". Renewables should be invested in for the time being, (early 21st century), while other funds are put into newer tech. research such as fusion power. If this funding is not put now, we will have ZERO chance of having alternate power sources available by, say 2050. However, by funding such project now we keep the possibility open.

ITER (International Thermonuclear Experiment Reactor) opened in France in 2006. The project is funded by the G8, China, Brazil, and other countries. The plan calls for 10 years of construction, followed by 20 years of research. This is what is needed, so that by 2040 when energy is in much higher demand than it is now, hopefully the project will yield good, useful results. I also don't understand how fusion power is 'dangerous' when compared with current fuels such as fission power and coal. Fusion produces hundreds of times less radiation, no gaseous Co2 and or other exhaust gases.

Sources:

1. Muller, NonSolutions Chapter 23

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER

3. ITER, a Brief History of Fusion
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17952-iter-a-brief-history-of-fusion.html

What will the US do?

When the United States get hit with the same problem that Cuba did, our lifestyles have to change dramatically. While sitting in class yesterday, I was listening to what everyone was saying, and I was imagining how we would have to live. Last summer I went to India to visit, and I learned that you learn to appreciate the little things when you don't have them. India, now is much more modern than it was before, but stil I wasn't able to adjust. The way I lived in India over the summer is what I would imagine the US would have to live when this peak oil problem approaches. There would have to be electricity cuts, planting more trees, increase in hand labor, and also transporatation would also have to decrease.
Electricity cut was the main part of my visit that I could not adjust to. There would be a set time, about 3-4 hours a day when the government of India takes electricity from the houses and uses that electricity to water the fields. I think this is a way of getting a higher output with the same amount of input.
Planting trees: I noticed that everywhere I went in India there were lots and lots of trees. And in the evening when there would be no electricity, the people of the neighborhood would get together under trees and cool down from the summer heat. This is one of the benifits of planting trees, another is food. The electricity that is given to the farms in India, so the crops that is grown in the farms can be distributed in the local community.
Alot of the work that is done in small towns is hand labor. There is no Wal-Mart in the small town that I was in. Evferything that was brought and sold was locally grown or from local businesses. This is one thing that the US needs to do to keep their money flowing within the nation.
Transportation, I didn't see much of bicycles in India as I saw in the Cuba movie, but I did see the public bus transportation. And it is true for India also, if you miss one bus because it was too you would have to wait hours for the next bus. There are also these buggies, that has a bicycle infront of it, but the back seats like two people. This is a form of local transporation with in 5 mile radius. I could not imagine myself in that kind of situation where I would be transporting people by biking.
These seem very harsh, but when the worst is here, you have to do what ever it takes to stand up on your feet again. This is one way that the United States can take in reducing the use of fossil fuels.

results of increase in carbon dioxide in atmosphere

The increase in use of synthetic nitrogen fertilizer affects level of carbon dioxide in atmosphere. The increase of carbon dioxide leads to global warming and green house effects. Green house effects are caused when infrared radiation is absorbed by green house gases such as carbon dioxide, water vapor, methane which slows its escape into atmosphere. The increase in earth’s temperature is increasing with an unprecedented speed.http://environment.about.com/od/globalwarming/a/greenhouse.htm

Ethical issues and issues in the enviroment

I wanted to share something that not only did I learn about it today but I have been learning it in my cultural anthropology class. The Yanomami in South America are being invaded by colonization and mining. Mining I learned does alot to the environment that the yanomami are living in. Mining, ranching, and health care are endangering these indigenous people. Mining has brought pollution. Over 1,000 gold-miners are now working illegally on Yanomami land, transmitting deadly diseases like malaria and polluting the rivers and forest with mercury. Cattle ranchers are invading and deforesting the eastern fringe of their land. This class is all about people and resources. I see that the yanomami are the people and the resource is their land. They have lived and hunted in the rain forest for centuries and now they are being manipulated and invaded by illegal practices of big business. Here is a video that I would like to show you.

http://www.survivalinternational.org/films/beautifulhere
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3Tyx3ouBSI


A tribe in brazil and how people came and deforested the land. I am just emphasizing on how humans can disrespect the earth they live on to make it look ugly.

Airlines & Air Freight

I was just wondering how ethanol fuel affects the airlines and air travel in general-

You know, it is possible that ethanols maybe replace gasoline in cars. We "may" be able to have nuclear-powered freighters carry cargo on the oceans. But one of the most important aspects of globalization in the 21st century, in addition to the internet, is the massive interconnectivity afforded by cheap air travel. Airlines, air freight, and even militaries all rely on cheap oil to keep running. And many analysts and engineers state that ethanol fuel will never be able to replace kerosene because it simply doesn't provide enough power when it is burned. . . . and I don't think "not enough power" is something pilots like to hear. . . .

On the other hand, some airlines are pushing for ethanol fuels despite this ominous predictions. Virgin Atlantic pushed ahead in 2008 with a flight with a 747-400 using a 20% coconut oil, 80% kerosene mix. The bad news- the flight was only 200 km. of course, what this will do to coconut prices around the world has yet to be determined. The U.S. Air Force has already tested flights using synfuel- a synthetic fuel made from coal and natural gas (instead of oil). Sir Richard Branson of Virgin Atlantic hopes than algaewill soon become the source of high-density fuels need for the airline industry.

Bob Hastings of the IAR Gas Turbine Laboratory believes that, "operators will start seeing ethanol in their jet fuel in five years time and a significant percentage in 10 years. That's going to be motivated by security-of-supply issues and cost. It will initially hit the field as a blend . . . [and] I don't expect we'll see more than an 85-percent ethanol mix. It's reasonable not to see it in North America, but in other parts of the world, I think we will see it used [in jet aircraft] a lot sooner. In terms of greenhouse gas reduction, biofuels are the only way to go [but that's] a long-term goal."

References:

Scientific American. Feb 25th, 2009.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=jumbo-jet-no-longer-biofuel-virgin-after-palm-oil-flight

Aviation Week. Sept. 14th, 2007
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/GREE09147.xml&headline=You%20Want%20Green%20Jet%20Fuel,%20Eh?&channel=busav

read this article

Op-Ed Contributors

Yes We Can (Pass Climate Change Legislation)

• Sign In to E-Mail
• Print
• ShareClose
  • Linkedin
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • MySpace
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Permalink
  • 
    

By JOHN KERRY and LINDSEY GRAHAM

Published: October 10, 2009

Washington

Skip to next paragraph

Related

Times Topics: Global Warming

CONVENTIONAL wisdom suggests that the prospect of Congress passing a comprehensive climate change bill soon is rapidly approaching zero. The divisions in our country on how to deal with climate change are deep. Many Democrats insist on tough new standards for curtailing the carbon emissions that cause global warming. Many Republicans remain concerned about the cost to Americans relative to the environmental benefit and are adamant about breaking our addiction to foreign sources of oil.

However, we refuse to accept the argument that the United States cannot lead the world in addressing global climate change. We are also convinced that we have found both a framework for climate legislation to pass Congress and the blueprint for a clean-energy future that will revitalize our economy, protect current jobs and create new ones, safeguard our national security and reduce pollution.

Our partnership represents a fresh attempt to find consensus that adheres to our core principles and leads to both a climate change solution and energy independence. It begins now, not months from now — with a road to 60 votes in the Senate.

It’s true that we come from different parts of the country and represent different constituencies and that we supported different presidential candidates in 2008. We even have different accents. But we speak with one voice in saying that the best way to make America stronger is to work together to address an urgent crisis facing the world.

This process requires honest give-and-take and genuine bipartisanship. In that spirit, we have come together to put forward proposals that address legitimate concerns among Democrats and Republicans and the other constituencies with stakes in this legislation. We’re looking for a new beginning, informed by the work of our colleagues and legislation that is already before Congress.

First, we agree that climate change is real and threatens our economy and national security. That is why we are advocating aggressive reductions in our emissions of the carbon gases that cause climate change. We will minimize the impact on major emitters through a market-based system that will provide both flexibility and time for big polluters to come into compliance without hindering global competitiveness or driving more jobs overseas.

Second, while we invest in renewable energy sources like wind and solar, we must also take advantage of nuclear power, our single largest contributor of emissions-free power. Nuclear power needs to be a core component of electricity generation if we are to meet our emission reduction targets. We need to jettison cumbersome regulations that have stalled the construction of nuclear plants in favor of a streamlined permit system that maintains vigorous safeguards while allowing utilities to secure financing for more plants. We must also do more to encourage serious investment in research and development to find solutions to our nuclear waste problem.

Third, climate change legislation is an opportunity to get serious about breaking our dependence on foreign oil. For too long, we have ignored potential energy sources off our coasts and underground. Even as we increase renewable electricity generation, we must recognize that for the foreseeable future we will continue to burn fossil fuels. To meet our environmental goals, we must do this as cleanly as possible. The United States should aim to become the Saudi Arabia of clean coal. For this reason, we need to provide new financial incentives for companies that develop carbon capture and sequestration technology.

In addition, we are committed to seeking compromise on additional onshore and offshore oil and gas exploration — work that was started by a bipartisan group in the Senate last Congress. Any exploration must be conducted in an environmentally sensitive manner and protect the rights and interests of our coastal states.

Fourth, we cannot sacrifice another job to competitors overseas. China and India are among the many countries investing heavily in clean-energy technologies that will produce millions of jobs. There is no reason we should surrender our marketplace to countries that do not accept environmental standards. For this reason, we should consider a border tax on items produced in countries that avoid these standards. This is consistent with our obligations under the World Trade Organization and creates strong incentives for other countries to adopt tough environmental protections.

Finally, we will develop a mechanism to protect businesses — and ultimately consumers — from increases in energy prices. The central element is the establishment of a floor and a ceiling for the cost of emission allowances. This will also safeguard important industries while they make the investments necessary to join the clean-energy era. We recognize there will be short-term transition costs associated with any climate change legislation, costs that can be eased. But we also believe strongly that the long-term gain will be enormous.

Even climate change skeptics should recognize that reducing our dependence on foreign oil and increasing our energy efficiency strengthens our national security. Both of us served in the military. We know that sending nearly $800 million a day to sometimes-hostile oil-producing countries threatens our security. In the same way, many scientists warn that failing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will lead to global instability and poverty that could put our nation at risk.

Failure to act comes with another cost. If Congress does not pass legislation dealing with climate change, the administration will use the Environmental Protection Agency to impose new regulations. Imposed regulations are likely to be tougher and they certainly will not include the job protections and investment incentives we are proposing.

The message to those who have stalled for years is clear: killing a Senate bill is not success; indeed, given the threat of agency regulation, those who have been content to make the legislative process grind to a halt would later come running to Congress in a panic to secure the kinds of incentives and investments we can pass today. Industry needs the certainty that comes with Congressional action.

We are confident that a legitimate bipartisan effort can put America back in the lead again and can empower our negotiators to sit down at the table in Copenhagen in December and insist that the rest of the world join us in producing a new international agreement on global warming. That way, we will pass on to future generations a strong economy, a clean environment and an energy-independent nation.

John Kerry is a Democratic senator from Massachusetts. Lindsey Graham is a Republican senator from South Carolina.



- they are now concerned with this being an issue when in the past they knew about certain things that were going to result in chaos. They are discussing about how the world will turn out to be when carbon emissions are so high now but with carbon emissions being reduced it will help with the future. The government has always had the right and the say to what comes down in the economy and with the environment. Global warming as been an issue for many years and we as Americans need to come together as a whole to resolve such things. The government can only do so much. Like in discussion we are too reliable on peak oil to fuel our economy and our everyday lives. We need to become more dependent on ourselves and stop relying on china, India, middle east and etc, to help us out with our imports and exports and other supplies. We need to stop living like Pharaohs and come less dependent on luxury and efficiency.

Nitrogen Cycle and it's contributions to agriculture and the world.

The lecture on nitrogen has brought many ways of understanding on how hard it is to get and to be used. Nitrogen indeed is in plants, animals, atmosphere, dead matter, and fecal matter. This is what I have learned besides it being in DNA and RNA from a and p 1 and 2. Nitrogen fixation has helped out in agriculture and that's why now we have alot to eat.

The nitrogen cycle is one of the most important processes in nature for living organisms. Although nitrogen gas is relatively inert, bacteria in the soil are capable of “fixing” the nitrogen into a usable form (as a fertilizer) for plants. In other words, Nature has provided a method to produce nitrogen for plants to grow. Animals eat the plant material where the nitrogen has been incorporated into their system, primarily as protein. The cycle is completed when other bacteria convert the waste nitrogen compounds back to nitrogen gas. Nitrogen is crucial to life, as it is a component of all proteins. http://periodic.lanl.gov/elements/7.html

So basically without Nitrogen the whole ecosystem is disturbed and becomes chaotic.

A new idea for an old place

A couple of weeks ago in a class review/discussion session, the class ended with Professor Hirsch asking the class to think of ways to put to use the information we digest interpret and discuss, not to just go home and chill out in front of the T.V. but to mull over ideas and try to take them to the next level.
I've had an idea evolving in my mind since the first few weeks of class, the idea of my community's resource efficiency. I think so much can be done and has to be done at the local level to further prevent irreversible damage to the earth and it's finite resources. First off I currently live in a rural agriculture farming community, Washington County. There's a mixture of dairy cows and beef cattle and plenty of subsidized corn and crop growers, with the occasional alpaca and buffalo farmer. I live on a 70 acre farm, where my family and our landlords raise cattle for strict human consumption. The town consists of one stop light in town and quite a few small locally owned businesses, a very typical rural community.
WIth a variable amount of investigation I've discovered a lot of small business owners have made small efforts to be more energy efficient and to include organic and green products to offer to their costumers. Specific examples range from energy efficient light bulbs to selling organic fertilizer at the local florist. I've deciphered that some of the changes are made from the economic need to be more frugal and the consumer need to keep up with the "Going Green" movement. The resource, that I discovered, that's lacking in the community is that there is no effort to rally small business owners and residents of Cambridge to gather together to form our own Going Green Movement.
A movement I envision, that unifies local business, their owners, employees and their costumers to embrace the conservation of natural resources and alternative energy uses. I also envision the Chamber of Commerce and the Town of Cambridge officials to start to formulate a plan that will sustain the community of Cambridge completely independent of fossil fuels and look towards developing funds for energy efficient resources like wind turbines and hydroelectric power that could power 1000's of acres of land. Whatever the ideas are to save on resources is trivial, the focus is to get people together. People that have already started taking steps towards Going Green. People, like myself, that have planted a single seed that has the potential, with some optimism to grow to huge proportions. We could set a president, a standard that other rural communities could look towards.
Through my studies at UAlbany and Women Studies courses, I've come to realize the most oppressed people are the ones isolated from themselves. For instance women in the 17th century were practicality kept in the home under lock and key. They had no access to each other for support and the exchange of ideas it wasn't until two women, Elizabeth Caddie Stanton and Suzanne B. Anthony conversed together over tea and had the opportunity to exchange ideas. Their interactions were the true beginnings to the Women's Movement. Their beginnings and the beginnings of many other movements have to be studied and repeated and to include new age technologies and ways of communication. These tools need to be utilized to bring to a head the desperate need to detoxify ourselves from an addiction to fossil fuel and cheap exhaustible resources.

Geobacter energy source

The discovery of the role of microbes in the nitrogen cycle was a huge finding. It allowed scientists to put all their data together and comprise the full picture of how nitrogen is cycled throughout the planet. At the time virtually no scientists had thought that microorganisms could have been capable of such an important role in the ecosystem.
With technological advancements in virtually all aspects of science, the study of microorganisms has become increasingly interesting. Genetic modification techniques have allowed scientists to evolve microbes with specific goals in mind. Uses of such developed organisms have been to clean up oil spills and radioactive run off. It had been observed that the process by which these “geobacter” microbes clean targeted pollution can produce energy. These bacteria can be utilized to clean biomass and other waste and turn it into useable energy.
Researchers from the University of Massachusetts Amherst have recently evolved a new strain of geobacters that have 800% more energy output than previously developed strains. With more effort and research microorganisms may be the key to sustainable energy and possibly have many more applications.


http://gas2.org/2009/09/01/mud-loving-bacteria-increases-fuel-cell-output-by-800/

Energy Efficiency Can Reduce Our Carbon Consumption Rates

We all know that nearly everything we own uses energy, required energy to make it, etc. What can we do about reducing the energy input into everything? EFFICIENCY!! Everything from our automobiles to our home appliances to our light bulbs to our computers all have electrical efficiency ratings! We need to be conscious consumers, invest a little bit of time and research into the products we buy to find out how energy efficient they are. Not only personal change is necessary. We need the big corporations of industry to step it up as well. They need to produce more efficient processes in their factories, and the way they provide services. For example, electrical power companies could focus on their power plant emissions and increasing the efficiency of creating the actual electricity. Not only this, approximately 10% of the electricity produced is lost in the power lines! 10%!Finding better materials for power lines in terms of conduction seems like it would benefit the power company itself and in fact pay for itself within a little period of time! The difference we could make just by ourselves investing time, same with corporations across the country, would be huge! Efficiency is a great thing. We need to enforce strict efficiency guidelines across the country. The ability to be more efficient would mean less energy/electricity to be used! The less energy used, the less dependence on oil and other non-renewable resources of energy. The New York Times article Efficiency, Not Just Alternatives, Is Promoted as an Energy Saver promotes this philosophy stating efficiency is part of the big picture and that it is about as important as creating electricity from renewable resources in the here and now picture. The article at one point states " 'Efficiency is the steak,'... 'Renewables are the sizzle.' " The fact is, most businesses are not willing to invest money into increasing efficiency for their companies, worrying about when they will see returns in their investments. It is imperative that the government impose stricter guidelines on big industry. It is also important to realize that on a personal level, we can all make a difference individually as a consumer. As our world works its way into a sustainable way, higher EFFICIENCY must always be considered and will improve all of our lives if achieved.

Alternative energy source: Electric power

Accroding to, 2007: Peak Oil - The EV Imperative, the solution for peak oil, is the plug in hybrid and battery electric vehicles. This website states that electrical power is the way to go and it's very efficient. They talked about the United Kingdom and how only 15% of their total production of energy is required to run all the vehicles on the road, compared to 29 billion litres of fuel sold in the UK in 2001.
My opnion is a little different. The 2007: Peak Oil - The EV Imperative, says that the electric power is environmental friendly. It might be give off less pollution but it requires more eneergy to be put in than the output. What we need to do is limit the use of automobiles. We need to start walking, which'll also help keep us healthy. We need to start car pooling, which'll save us money and keep the environment less polluted. As mentioned in the Cartoon guide, we need to not be the nation of one car for one person. This reputation is going to lead us to the end. Smil highlights the fact that most of our oil resources today are on a negative slope and are requiring more energy input than ever before.
Rather than sitting around waiting for a new oil resource to just pop up, we need to start preserving what we have now. Or else before we know it, the prices for oil will shoot up again, and some will be making a decision of filling up their car or feeding their family.

http://www.meridian-int-res.com/Projects/Solving_Oil.htm

Humans

I feel like everything that happens in the world right now is because of humans and we are the ones who is still trying to find a solution for everything even after we know the causes of it. Like carbon cycle, nitogen cycle,deforestation,green house effects. I wouldn't be surprised if the world comes to an end on dec 12th 2012.

nitrogen cycle

Nitrogen is an essential component of amino acids and the main element of atmosphere which rounds upto four-fifth of atmosphere. But now the burning of fossil fuels adds extra notrogen and nitrous oxide to atmosphere which pollute the ecosystem. Another major issue is that it adds to the green house effect, which is the heating of surface of the planet.It cause acide rain which pollutes earth's atmosphere,water and soil. when it goes through the soil,it harms the nutrients like calcium. I think the only way to stop this upset is by dentrification which means that we should use nitrogen nutrients as energy source and return nitrogen molecues into the atmosphere. Engineers are working on this.

Recession not bad for Everyone-Carbon get cut

The recent global economic recession that started has last November has been hurting everyone it seems. Well, not everyone. The environment is one benefactor of the economic crisis, even if people seem to be losing jobs, economies slowing down, and others are in general losing. The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that global carbon dioxide emissions will fall by over 2% in 2009. This is a larger drop than any other period in over 40 years, including the smaller economic recession during the early 1980’s.

Environmentalists and economists alike stated that there is a correlation between nation’s GDP and carbon emissions. Basically, the larger the GDP of a country the more carbon emissions it will produce, since it is expected to be more industrialized and more “developed”. Some of the major new carbon emissions in the past decade have come not from the developed countries, but from the newly developing countries, which are striving to catch up economically and commercially with their more advanced counterparts. However, in the process of rapid industrialization, many have resorted to crude methods of energy production and generation. China, for example, gets most of its national energy output from coal. Contrast this to France, which produces over 80% of its energy through nuclear power. Setting aside for the moment the negative effects of nuclear power (radioactive waste, etc), nuclear power is much cleaner for the environment than coal. Likewise, countries like India, Brazil, and others are resorting to less-advanced technologies (ie. Cheaper tech) in order to boost their countries development, standard-of-living, and economic output.

The recession not only cut the business sector’s demand for power, but also it seems led to deferments in investments for new fossil fuel plants. Does this mean that the recession is a good thing? I would argue no. The recession may be benefiting the environment but it is detrimental to people’s livelihoods. However, with so many governments around the world passing economic stimulus bills, perhaps this money could be put to research for new more energy efficient technologies. Not only will this stimulate the economies into jump-start by providing jobs for scientists, engineers, technicians, and others, but it will hopefully lead to breakthroughs in technology that will allow us to produce energy more efficiently while producing less carbon emissions than previous technologies. The recession is a respite, a calm in the storm, and we should use that break to our advantage. Our carbon emissions will likely continue to rise once the recession is over, but what we plan and do during the recession will affect the rate and possibly eventual plateau-ing of that rise. That depends not only on politician’s decisions, but on our decisions and actions as a whole.

References:
Black, Richard. “Recession and Policies cut Carbon”. BBC. September 21st, 2009. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8267475.stm