Our Most Precious Resources Sunday, Nov 26 2006

Energy, if we think about it, is fascinating. The way it provides us with electricity, heat, and so much more makes it an indispensable part of our lives. Ever since the Industrial Revolution in the late 1800s, we have strongly depended on fossil fuels. What would we do without our energy supply?

Coal, oil, and gas are our fossil fuels, a.k.a. our main sources of energy. These resources are burned and transformed into energy as follows:

 Chart: http://home.clara.net/darvill/altenerg/fossil.htm

Heat is released as energy when fossil fuels (coal, oil, natural gas) are burned.

Broken down by percentages,

• Coal provides about 28% of our energy
• Oil provides about 40% of our energy
• Gas provides about 20% of our energy

Our coal originated from prehistoric plants. When they died, they decomposed with relatively large carbon content. This material was compressed over many years, leaving us with the coal we have today. We obtain our coal through coal mines, so it is not very readily available. We get it at the cost of the dangerous labor of miners.  But coal does not come without its advantages – it can produce a good amount of electricity in one area at a pretty low cost. Coal can usually be found on all continents. The largest supplies can be found in China and the United States.

Oil (petroleum) also comes from decomposed organic material. It is easier to obtain and also cheaper because it flows via pipes. Oil can generate electricity and also aid in the production of items such as medicines and plastics. As we are pretty well aware due to the conflict in the Middle East, this is where we get our oil.

Digging for oil.

Gas is most often found in Europe, Africa, and the western hemisphere. Natural gas can be found in oil deposits. Gas is also carried through pipes. Its main use is providing heat when it is burned. It burns cleanly.

The fact still remains that these fossil fuels cause pollution. The combustion of fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide, which is a major factor in the problem of global warming. Before many people lived on this planet, the recycling of oxygen and carbon dioxide was fairly balanced. But ever since we started burning fossil fuels, so much carbon dioxide has been released into the air that this balance started to disappear. The burning of coal releases sulphur dioxide as well, which is a gas contained in acid rain. Carbon monoxide, as we all know, is very dangerous to humans. This can result from the burning of fossil fuels when there is not much oxygen available in a certain area.

Another problem facing us is that coal, oil, and natural gas are nonrenewable resources. This means that they cannot be “renewed” as quickly as they are used up. It took many millions of years for them to form on their own in nature. Because we use these natural resources at such a high rate, there is no way that they will be replaced. Once they are used up, they’re gone. Sooner or later, other energy sources will have to be used. This is already being looked into by scientists. Many years from now, when these nonrenewable resources have vanished, the world will need new sources of energy. Solar energy is renewable because we will always have the sun. This could very well be the source of energy that the world is depending on hundreds of years from now.

http://home.clara.net/darvill/altenerg/fossil.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonrenewable_resource

http://library.thinkquest.org/20331/types/fossil/

Pics:

http://www.scsc.k12.ar.us/2000backeast/ENatHist/Members/Reynolds/mvc-002f.jpg

http://www.koalie.net/Walks/200310-CA-J6/20031003172546.jpg

http://www.hvjournal.com/uploadimage/gas.jpg

One Response »

 

Smokey, You Can Take A Break From Watching For Those Fires – They Aren’t Cooking Us Yet Saturday, Nov 25 2006

 

Whenever I think of forest fires, I still think of Smokey Bear, perched up, scanning the forests for fires. Back when I was little and was a fan of Smokey Bear, I thought that forest fires were always destructive to the environment. After all, they killed countless trees and probably animals as well. There is also the consideration of global warming – it has been thought that forest fires contribute to the heating of the earth’s atmosphere and the hole in the ozone layer. A couple months ago, though, when we were studying ecosystems, we learned that forest fires are actually beneficial to the environment. We learned that they are a natural part of the ecosystem and that they help with the sustenance of the organisms within the ecosystem.

But while forest fires do give off gases that cause global warming, they simultaneously cool the atmoshpere. How, you ask? After the gases are released, the shading of the forest by the trees changes. This change means that more sunlight will be reflected away from the earth. If the light is reflected back, the result will be a cooling effect.

Photo courtesy of US National Interagency Fire Center.

According to James T. Randerson, associate professor of earth system science at the University of California, Irvine, “This cooling effect cancels the impact of the greenhouse gases. The net effect of fire is close to neutral when averaged globally, and in northern regions may lead to slightly colder temperatures.”

It really is a balancing act. Part of this whole theory is that once the “shading” trees burn down, it takes many decades for them to cover the area fully once again. This is where the problem begins. If there are less trees, there will be less “reflection” back into space. Then we have the problem of global warming presenting itself. But once the trees do grow back, forest fires cause the trees to release their gases that cause the increase in shading. Then the atmosphere can be cooled once again.

http://enn.com/today.html?id=11681

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wildfire

Pics:

http://www.islandnet.com/~see/weather/graphics/photos/fire.jpg

http://brainfuel.tv/postimages/smokey_bear.jpg

One Response »

 

Fishermen Are Turning to Sharks! Thursday, Nov 9 2006

When I read about this, my eyes bulged and I was taken aback. I was under the impression that fishermen were content with regular ol’ fish and that they avoided sharks, like most people. Never would I have thought that fishermen would want to catch sharks! But apparently this is happening in some parts of the world.

Due to decreasing stocks of fish in our bodies of water, fishermen are relying on sharks to provide their meat. However, if fishermen continue to do this, many species will be threatened with extinction. It comes about this way: fisheries that contain normal fish, such as cod, walleye, bass, etc., are becoming regulated more closely. Therefore, fishermen turn to shark fisheries because they are not managed in most countries.

It is estimated that over 100 million sharks are captured every year. Most of these, however, are tossed back into the sea after having their fins chopped off (most fishermen only catch the sharks for their tasty fins).  Sarah Fowler, co-chair of the World Conservation Union’s shark specialist group, puts it this way: “Perhaps the most important cause of declining shark stocks is the huge international trade demand for shark fin.”

Researchers say that if “overfishing” and destruction of habitats were to continue, the world’s whole seafood population would collapse within 40 years. It’s a good thing that in some areas there is management of fishing.

I’ve done some further research in order to clarify some information about sharks:

• Contrary to belief and many horror stories we hear/have heard, most sharks are not dangerous for humans.
• Interesting fact: last year, it was recorded in the International Shark Attack File that there were only 58 unprovoked shark attacks worldwide. Of these 58, only 4 were fatal.
• Now, compare the above statistic with this statistic: several hundred people die each year from lighting strikes, and about 1-3 million people die from diseases that are caused by mosquito bites.

I guess this puts the fishing of sharks in perspective. It’s kind of sad in a way - many people think nothing of the potential extinction of sharks because they are assumed by the majority of people to be dangerous to humankind. The truth is, though, that many species of sharks and many species of fish are in real danger of becoming extinct unless the fishing of them is monitored carefully and not overdone.

Sources:

http://enn.com/today.html?id=11610

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shark#Shark_intelligence

Picture:

http://www.tahiti.pictures-pacific.com/bora-bora/shark.jpg

3 Responses »

 

Where Does All That Storm-Water Go? Wednesday, Nov 8 2006

I’m sure we all remember that huge thunderstorm on that Friday night (I think it was back in September) that caused so many street and basement floodings, as well as tornado warnings, throughout the Chicago area. These kinds of storms are problematic for sewage systems, and I know this firsthand because a couple sewers near my house were overflowing considerably during that storm! I seriously thought that cars were going to start floating away – that’s how high the water was! It’s somewhat of a relief to know that in Seattle, Washington, a movement is being developed that will eliminate these kinds of problems.

This new movement is called low-impact development. It aims to revamp streets so that they work more like drainage systems. Because pavement makes up a significant portion of the Earth’s surface, this development would be ideal. The whole purpose for this development is to increase the drainage of rainfall (and we all know that this is sometimes desperately needed in the Chicago area).

Seattle Public Utilities, through the Street Edge Alternatives project, models streets to be structured to drain the way they did before this new movement was developed.  Tracy Tackett of Seattle Public Utilities says: “We’re taking an area and making it function like it was in a predeveloped state, as if it didn’t have impervious area.” Part of the plan is to reconstruct the street to be narrower and somewhat curved. This way, there will be more of a kind of “path” for extra storm-water. There are now shrubs that line this street in Seattle, and these help the movement of water to stay away from any extra paved areas and flow to unpaved areas, where it can be absorbed by soil. 

The street that the project has been done on is 2^nd Ave. NW in Seattle. Measuring devices have been place at the end of the street, where it is expected the water should collect. Furthermore, what exactly happens to the water once it seeps underground needs to be determined and demonstrated. However, this project still has not looked at what happens to pollutants that are normally contained in this storm-water runoff, i.e. motor oil.

In Seattle, this project is viewed by most as worthwhile, even though it costs about $300,000 per block. It deals with excess storm-water so that people don’t have to worry about it. Many people are in favor of this new plan, even if it costs them money. Solutions that are more complex include “high-porosity” paving stones and underground tanks; however, these are more expensive and have not been implemented as of yet. Hmm…wouldn’t it be great if this development were to spread? There would be much less flooding during major thunderstorms, which we tend to get quite a few of each year in Chicago…

Source:

http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2006/oct/tech/nl_naturedesign.html

Picture: http://us.inmagine.com/168nwm/photodisc/pddt007/pddt007065.jpg

Leave a Response »

 

Our Oceans – Not as Eternal as We Thought Sunday, Nov 5 2006

Our vast oceans that we tend to think are endless and eternal are actually under threat. Various human activities are dangerous for oceans around the world.

In Japan, scientific research has been done on whales. Because of this, whales such as humpbacks and fins, which are already endangered, are being continually killed. Whaling is certainly an activity that is jeopardizing the existence of whales in our oceans.

Fishing is also a problem, particularly the fishing that is done by large industries. They extract, literally, whole schools of fish from the water. By doing this for so many different species of fish, these industries are seriously threatening the survival of some species of fish. Also, fishing nets kill hundreds of thousands of whales, dolphins, and other larger aquatic animals, as well as coral reefs. 

Global warming is a problem for aquatic life just as much as it is a problem for terrestrial life. The widening hole in the ozone layer is warming the temperature of the earth as a whole. Naturally, this causes the temperatures of the oceans to rise. If they rise too much, many fish and other aquatic life will not be able to withstand it. 

Pollution is undoubtedly a concern. We dump so many pollutants into our oceans, such as pesticides, as well as contents from sewage, industries, spills, explosions, and mining.  Increasing amounts of carbon dioxide in the air are increasing the acidity of oceans. The absorption of this gas is decreasing the pH level of oceans. This harms coral reefs and slows their rate of growth. According to Ken Caldeira, a chemical oceanographer at Stanford University, oceans are more acidic than they have been for “many millions of years.”  

It is obvious that there are many different threats facing the oceans and the marine life contained within them. Marine reserves are a possible solution to these problems, as they would preserve and protect aquatic life. However, in order for the oceans to be preserved, there must be elimination of all these harmful activities, such as fishing, pollution, etc. Hopefully, in the near future, the work can be done to keep our beautiful, diverse oceans alive.

Sources: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/04/AR2006070400772.html

 

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/oceans/threats

 

Picture:

http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/media/archive/466.jpg

One Response »