Chemistry
Hello and welcome to my Chemistry page! I'll be the first to admit that mathematics and sciences are not my strongest suits, but when I learned that we were having Chemistry this year, I was incredibly excited! Already I have learned that our teacher, Steve Smith, directs our class in a very open-ended fashion, oriented towards allowing us to develop our lab skills and critical thinking through trial and error. It makes for some very interesting projects, which I will be very excited to share in upcoming posts!
The Production of Energy Debated
For our final project in Chemistry, we learned about the production of energy and how various energy production methods affect both us and our future. This project was tied in with research in Humanities, which was focused on the environment, our environmental ethics, and our senses of place in this world. Knowing how various energy production methods operate is vital to helping us develop our own environmental ethics.
We all began this project through researching the energy production methods we had been assigned. In my case, that was on nuclear power reactors. In groups, we wrote joint scientific statements based upon our findings. You will find my group's here.
Next, we began preparing for the debate, which you can watch above! Please click if you would like to read the notes for my opening and closing statements.
We all began this project through researching the energy production methods we had been assigned. In my case, that was on nuclear power reactors. In groups, we wrote joint scientific statements based upon our findings. You will find my group's here.
Next, we began preparing for the debate, which you can watch above! Please click if you would like to read the notes for my opening and closing statements.
Project Reflection
There were three main focuses to our project, each to be explored by different groups: Coal, natural gas, and nuclear power plants. Our group focused on nuclear power plants. Initially each student in our group, which consisted of Nano, Molly, Martina, and Hunter, performed research without knowing which side of the debate they would be covering so their information could be mostly unbiased. Then we were split into smaller groups, teams of two with a moderator. Hunter was our moderator and Nano was my partner. We were arguing against the construction of more nuclear power plants within the US. At the beginning of this project, I was very undecided about where I stood upon the matter. By the time we were finished researching, I found myself drawn toward the side of the debate that we argued: Instead of producing more power plants, we should keep the ones we have and expand both upon other green energy production processes and the efficiency of the various power-consuming machines in our society.
This position has been founded by a number of pieces of very important evidence. On one hand, 8 thimble sized pellets of U-235 have enough energy stored within them to power the average house for nearly a year. There are hundreds of these pellets per fuel assembly and multiple fuel assemblies per nuclear reactor. Overall, with about 104 reactors running out of the 64 reactors in the US, nuclear power plants generated about 19% of our nation's energy. This is a high percentage which, unlike most of our fuel, can be created domestically, therefore increasing our energy independence. That being said, I don't feel like the best answer is for us to increase the number of nuclear power plants we have here. We're only barely keeping up with the waste of the plant we have currently, over 3,000,000,000 pounds of radioactive waste is produced each year, and we have nowhere to put it where it won't eventually harm us. So we need to focus more on other green energy sources as well as on improving the energy efficiency of the products we create. In this manner, we can best take advantage of the energy we harvest from this process without endangering ourselves further. In order to solidify this opinion, I plan on taking the time to see my peers' debates so I can better understand their energy production methods as well and decide whether or not that information will change my opinion. Overall, though, I felt that our debate was very relevant and informative and helped me to gain a stronger perspective on where I stand on this issue. Arguing with my peers could sometimes be difficult because they made really strong points within their debate.
As mentioned before, this began as a joint project between Humanities and Chemistry. Admittedly, this connection was far stronger when we began, but I still learned valuable things about the environment as well as various energy production methods such as natural gas "fracking" and coal mining which both complimented and informed us about the subjects we learned in Chemistry. We also studied environmental ethics in depth as well as sense of place. The former is essentially about the way you perceive nature: Does it have instrumental value to us, or should nature be preserved for its intrinsic goodness alone? Sense of place is essentially the place where you feel most connected. Where do you feel at home? Unfortunately, as the project progressed, the connections between sense of place and what we learned in Chemistry largely fell through. However, my environmental ethic is something that is very important to consider when I consider the various energy production methods. Above ground, natural gas drilling really takes up very little room. However, below ground rocks are broken apart in hairline fractures which are then widened in order to drain minuscule pockets of oil from the earth. Coal mining and production not only needs far more space, it also releases heavy CO2 emissions which slowly poison our atmosphere. Finally, nuclear energy production requires not only mines and mills to produce the enriched "yellow cake" Uranium 235, a plant must also be built. The waste that these plants produce will also effect us for years to come. This is why I believe that we cannot afford to build more plants. However, the amount of energy that these plants produce is so significant in our country's overall energy production that we can't afford to lose what we have. Through what I've learned about the other processes in Humanities, there are certain benefits and evils coming from each method. This is why we must be cautious as we proceed and perhaps stop to study how we can improve upon what we already have before we continue onwards.
Looking back on our debate, I do wish that we all had had more time to practice the delivery of our speeches simply because they don't sound particularly convicting. I did not have that time because it had been made known to me the evening before the debate that we were supposed to have our opening statements memorized. I had very little time to attempt this and my delivery was jerky as I attempted to deliver my statement without studying the page before me as a result. My intro went well in some areas and had issues in others, and because both our moderator and I lost track of time, I didn't have a chance to even summarize the last half of my opening statement. I feel that the question and answer section went far better than the introduction though, and I was able to keep a professional tone and posture throughout the debate. If I had this to do again, I wouldn't do anything differently with the point we were making except go over my opening statement over and over again with my partner, as I'm sure that the debaters in Intelligence Squared debates do.
For our reflections, we were asked to fact check two statements made by our opponents. One fact immediately leapt to mind that I wished to refute. Both of my esteemed opponents made the claim that nuclear power plants produced no carbon dioxide whatsoever. This is not the case. The production alone of these plants creates carbon dioxide, the poster child of greenhouse gas emissions. Additionally, the operation, maintenance, and eventual decommissioning of the plant must also be considered. According to the researchers of Timeforchange.org, Electricity from atomic energy emits 90 to 140 g CO2 per kilowatt hour (kWg) of energy produced. While this is very low, especially considering the CO2 emissions of coal power production, ranging from 1000-1100 g for every kWg, it still creates about a third of the emissions of natural gas power production. This is far higher than some may have you believe.
The second statement I researched was drawn from a debate we had over the safety of containment systems such as the Chernobyl sarcophagus. While our opponents argued that this was a safe method of containment, my partner, who had researched the subject at a different angle than I, argued that the radiation would still eventually leak through. Built to encase the ruins of the Chernobyl power plant, it is still considered far too dangerous for workers to repair the inside of this massive structure which is peppered with nearly 10,000 röntgens per hour. The average background radiation in most areas is only 40-50 microröntgens per hour. With this sort of constant radiation, the containment structure couldn't possibly outlast the uranium's radiation. Thankfully, a new containment structure is being built, designed for setup in 2015 and to last for the next century. However, outside the containment structure, there will still be enough radiation that it will be hazardous for workers to venture near.
This was a very interesting and informative project for me, and I'm very glad that we had the chance to work on it. I had the chance to learn many things that I'd never even heard of before, developing both my environmental ethic as well as a perspective on the production of energy in today's society.
This position has been founded by a number of pieces of very important evidence. On one hand, 8 thimble sized pellets of U-235 have enough energy stored within them to power the average house for nearly a year. There are hundreds of these pellets per fuel assembly and multiple fuel assemblies per nuclear reactor. Overall, with about 104 reactors running out of the 64 reactors in the US, nuclear power plants generated about 19% of our nation's energy. This is a high percentage which, unlike most of our fuel, can be created domestically, therefore increasing our energy independence. That being said, I don't feel like the best answer is for us to increase the number of nuclear power plants we have here. We're only barely keeping up with the waste of the plant we have currently, over 3,000,000,000 pounds of radioactive waste is produced each year, and we have nowhere to put it where it won't eventually harm us. So we need to focus more on other green energy sources as well as on improving the energy efficiency of the products we create. In this manner, we can best take advantage of the energy we harvest from this process without endangering ourselves further. In order to solidify this opinion, I plan on taking the time to see my peers' debates so I can better understand their energy production methods as well and decide whether or not that information will change my opinion. Overall, though, I felt that our debate was very relevant and informative and helped me to gain a stronger perspective on where I stand on this issue. Arguing with my peers could sometimes be difficult because they made really strong points within their debate.
As mentioned before, this began as a joint project between Humanities and Chemistry. Admittedly, this connection was far stronger when we began, but I still learned valuable things about the environment as well as various energy production methods such as natural gas "fracking" and coal mining which both complimented and informed us about the subjects we learned in Chemistry. We also studied environmental ethics in depth as well as sense of place. The former is essentially about the way you perceive nature: Does it have instrumental value to us, or should nature be preserved for its intrinsic goodness alone? Sense of place is essentially the place where you feel most connected. Where do you feel at home? Unfortunately, as the project progressed, the connections between sense of place and what we learned in Chemistry largely fell through. However, my environmental ethic is something that is very important to consider when I consider the various energy production methods. Above ground, natural gas drilling really takes up very little room. However, below ground rocks are broken apart in hairline fractures which are then widened in order to drain minuscule pockets of oil from the earth. Coal mining and production not only needs far more space, it also releases heavy CO2 emissions which slowly poison our atmosphere. Finally, nuclear energy production requires not only mines and mills to produce the enriched "yellow cake" Uranium 235, a plant must also be built. The waste that these plants produce will also effect us for years to come. This is why I believe that we cannot afford to build more plants. However, the amount of energy that these plants produce is so significant in our country's overall energy production that we can't afford to lose what we have. Through what I've learned about the other processes in Humanities, there are certain benefits and evils coming from each method. This is why we must be cautious as we proceed and perhaps stop to study how we can improve upon what we already have before we continue onwards.
Looking back on our debate, I do wish that we all had had more time to practice the delivery of our speeches simply because they don't sound particularly convicting. I did not have that time because it had been made known to me the evening before the debate that we were supposed to have our opening statements memorized. I had very little time to attempt this and my delivery was jerky as I attempted to deliver my statement without studying the page before me as a result. My intro went well in some areas and had issues in others, and because both our moderator and I lost track of time, I didn't have a chance to even summarize the last half of my opening statement. I feel that the question and answer section went far better than the introduction though, and I was able to keep a professional tone and posture throughout the debate. If I had this to do again, I wouldn't do anything differently with the point we were making except go over my opening statement over and over again with my partner, as I'm sure that the debaters in Intelligence Squared debates do.
For our reflections, we were asked to fact check two statements made by our opponents. One fact immediately leapt to mind that I wished to refute. Both of my esteemed opponents made the claim that nuclear power plants produced no carbon dioxide whatsoever. This is not the case. The production alone of these plants creates carbon dioxide, the poster child of greenhouse gas emissions. Additionally, the operation, maintenance, and eventual decommissioning of the plant must also be considered. According to the researchers of Timeforchange.org, Electricity from atomic energy emits 90 to 140 g CO2 per kilowatt hour (kWg) of energy produced. While this is very low, especially considering the CO2 emissions of coal power production, ranging from 1000-1100 g for every kWg, it still creates about a third of the emissions of natural gas power production. This is far higher than some may have you believe.
The second statement I researched was drawn from a debate we had over the safety of containment systems such as the Chernobyl sarcophagus. While our opponents argued that this was a safe method of containment, my partner, who had researched the subject at a different angle than I, argued that the radiation would still eventually leak through. Built to encase the ruins of the Chernobyl power plant, it is still considered far too dangerous for workers to repair the inside of this massive structure which is peppered with nearly 10,000 röntgens per hour. The average background radiation in most areas is only 40-50 microröntgens per hour. With this sort of constant radiation, the containment structure couldn't possibly outlast the uranium's radiation. Thankfully, a new containment structure is being built, designed for setup in 2015 and to last for the next century. However, outside the containment structure, there will still be enough radiation that it will be hazardous for workers to venture near.
This was a very interesting and informative project for me, and I'm very glad that we had the chance to work on it. I had the chance to learn many things that I'd never even heard of before, developing both my environmental ethic as well as a perspective on the production of energy in today's society.
Aerogels
For want of a nail the shoe was lost.
For want of a shoe the horse was lost.
For want of a horse the rider was lost.
For want of a rider the message was lost.
For want of a message the battle was lost.
For want of a battle the kingdom was lost.
And all for the want of a horseshoe nail.
This proverb teaches us the importance of sweating the small stuff, but seriously a kingdom lost for a nail? Well, what about a button, a tiny tin button that holds up a pair of trousers or clasps an overcoat. This is the legend of Napolean’s great defeat during his 1812 campaign to conquer Russia. It could be the case that his failure stemmed from the plight of tin pest. Tin pest is nothing more than a transformation of the microstructure inside the tin when the tin is cooled below 13 °C. Once the microstructure of the tin has transformed it begins to disintegrate, to turn to dust! Could Napolean have suffered great defeat because his soldiers were too preoccupied with holding their jackets closed and their pants up that they couldn’t march quickly or fight?
For want of a shoe the horse was lost.
For want of a horse the rider was lost.
For want of a rider the message was lost.
For want of a message the battle was lost.
For want of a battle the kingdom was lost.
And all for the want of a horseshoe nail.
This proverb teaches us the importance of sweating the small stuff, but seriously a kingdom lost for a nail? Well, what about a button, a tiny tin button that holds up a pair of trousers or clasps an overcoat. This is the legend of Napolean’s great defeat during his 1812 campaign to conquer Russia. It could be the case that his failure stemmed from the plight of tin pest. Tin pest is nothing more than a transformation of the microstructure inside the tin when the tin is cooled below 13 °C. Once the microstructure of the tin has transformed it begins to disintegrate, to turn to dust! Could Napolean have suffered great defeat because his soldiers were too preoccupied with holding their jackets closed and their pants up that they couldn’t march quickly or fight?
For the entirety of this semester, we've been focusing on the effects the tiniest details make on every substance, and we've found that they're pretty big! As shown above, an excerpt of the form our teacher gave us at the beginning of this project, it's possible that tin pest may have in fact been the determining factor in who won the war. Every little detail, no matter how insignificant, is very important. For example, covalently and ionically bonded molecules give their substances very different properties and this is only on the molecular level! If tin pest was what caused Napoleon's loss, then it leads one to wonder what else has been caused by such minute details that we never considered? And how will new creations effect us in the future? As we learn more about materials and the composition of materials, we find more about the way they effect our everyday lives. That is what this project is about.
For this project, I researched and wrote an article about aerogels, which may be found here. Aerogels are relatively new materials, or they are at least in comparison to other materials. Discovered in 1929 by Dr. Samuel Stephens Kistler, these extremely light, porous, and strong materials are similar to kitchen sponges in composition in the fact that they have small holes throughout the entire material. These holes, however, are thousands and even millions of times smaller than what would be typically found in a kitchen sponge and are filled with gas, which is what makes them so incredibly light. They are created through a process called supercritical drying, in which a gel is placed into a chamber that is simultaneously heated and pressurized at the same time. At certain pressures and temperatures, the line between solid and liquid is blurred, allowing the liquid in a substance to be removed while leaving a solid skeleton behind.
These solids are incredibly interesting and one has even been created that is only three times heavier than air! They can hold a thousand times their weights (though with their weights, it's very easy to reach 1000 times) and are incredibly thermally insulating. A good example of this can be found right here.
I really enjoyed this project, mostly because I found such an interesting topic to look at. I wrote of my findings in the article below and hope that you take the time to look at it.
Light as Air: Solid Smoke Article
For this project, I researched and wrote an article about aerogels, which may be found here. Aerogels are relatively new materials, or they are at least in comparison to other materials. Discovered in 1929 by Dr. Samuel Stephens Kistler, these extremely light, porous, and strong materials are similar to kitchen sponges in composition in the fact that they have small holes throughout the entire material. These holes, however, are thousands and even millions of times smaller than what would be typically found in a kitchen sponge and are filled with gas, which is what makes them so incredibly light. They are created through a process called supercritical drying, in which a gel is placed into a chamber that is simultaneously heated and pressurized at the same time. At certain pressures and temperatures, the line between solid and liquid is blurred, allowing the liquid in a substance to be removed while leaving a solid skeleton behind.
These solids are incredibly interesting and one has even been created that is only three times heavier than air! They can hold a thousand times their weights (though with their weights, it's very easy to reach 1000 times) and are incredibly thermally insulating. A good example of this can be found right here.
I really enjoyed this project, mostly because I found such an interesting topic to look at. I wrote of my findings in the article below and hope that you take the time to look at it.
Light as Air: Solid Smoke Article