Green Career - Technology and Renewable Energy

My choice to study mechanical engineering largely came down to my love of cars. I have loved cars my whole life and, when it came down to choosing a career path, it seemed obvious that mechanical engineering would be a perfect fit for me. Well, since leaving high school, my interests have changed and once this class got into the swing of things, working in the renewable energy field started to seem more enticing. But I don't really want to work for a traditional energy company, they're too, well, boring. Nothing really seems that exciting about working for consumers energy. Plus, I would feel like I was just actively participating in green washing and I'm not about that. 

Essentially big utility companies work to dominate all of the energy production and grid infrastructure in an area, making it almost entirely impossible for competition. Areas where competition occurs generally are dominated by these massive utility companies that have overlapped in certain spots. The beauty of renewables is that it puts the ball back in the consumer's court. Why do I need to spend a ton of money every month on power when my home can simply make its own? Some people produce enough electricity that they actually make money on their home's as the unused excess energy is sold back to the grid. 

So, what I want to do is to empower the homeowner to sell their energy to their neighbors, and empower their neighbors to sell some of that to their neighbors. Imagine a neighborhood that produces its own electricity. "Oh, the Joneses have a cloud over their house? Here, I'll divert some of my excess energy to them for a few bucks." This all assumes that everybody's home produces enough electricity to operate all day and all night while also being able to send excess energy to the people living around them - something that isn't entirely viable, yet. So, say this neighborhood has also got a geothermal well, and the neighbors have pooled their money to build a few windmills throughout the neighborhood. Let's scale down this grid from one centralized hub controlled by a company that doesn't give a rip about you and your energy needs. Let's bring energy back to the community and take the power away from these monopolized utilities. 

Call it Uber for your home. You get online, buy a little electricity from next door and your neighbor's home battery diverts some electricity via a transmission line buried beneath the ground to your home. This will all be perfectly viable in the coming years and the best part is that the small scale offers more advantages than just knowing where your power is coming from. Storms knock out electrical grids all the time. One tree hanging on a power line and half the of town is without electricity, including the hospital. And the worst part is your utility company doesn't know that the power is out until someone calls them up angered by the blackout. Our grids are old and outdated and the people in charge of them don't really care. 

So, in short, buy a house. Make your own electricity. Sell it to others. That's my idea, at least. 

More on distributive power and the downfall of traditional utilities: 

http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/your-solar-panels-are-killing-utilities

http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/it-s-time-to-hurricane-proof-the-grid

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/why-morgan-stanley-is-betting-that-tesla-will-kill-your-power-company

Union of Concerned Scientists

The Union of Concerned Scientists was started by a group of individuals who were looking to challenge the scientific climate of their time. This organization was started in 1969 during a time when scientific resources were being poured into making war instead of focusing on progressing human development. This is the mission statement drafted 50 faculty members at MIT in 1969,

Misuse of scientific and technical knowledge presents a major threat to the existence of mankind. Through its actions in Vietnam our government has shaken our confidence in its ability to make wise and humane decisions. There is also disquieting evidence of an intention to enlarge further our immense destructive capability. The response of the scientific community to these developments has been hopelessly fragmented. There is a small group that helps to conceive these policies, and a handful of eminent men who have tried but largely failed to stem the tide from within the government. The concerned majority has been on the sidelines and ineffective. We feel that it is no longer possible to remain uninvolved. We therefore call on scientists and engineers at MIT, and throughout the country, to unite for concerted action and leadership: Action against dangers already unleashed and leadership toward a more responsible exploitation of scientific knowledge. 

The mission statement goes on to outline the five main tenants of the formation of such an organization, but the preceding statement largely sums up their intentions in creating the group. Unlike many other scientific organizations, the Union of Concerned Scientists is privately funded to ensure that its research isn't tainted by those that back it financially. The Union of Concerned Scientists has a variety of interests including: clean energy, clean vehicles, food and agriculture, global warming, nuclear power, nuclear weapons.

There are a number of ways in which students can interact with the UCS. The UCS has various projects that it is working on that require the help of many many participants to succeed. At their website, the UCS has a "take action" tab that outlines a number of projects that people can get involved with. One such project is a letter writing campaign to Exxon Mobil which asks writers to request that Exxon stop funding climate research that is misleading the public.

The majority of work that the group opens up to the public comes in the form of participating in various forms of raising a strong public voice. Projects that students could adapt to their classrooms could work to promote this work. Letter writing campaigns, public protests, social media projects, and many other projects like these all would help to promote this message. As far as directly working with the UCS, it seems that would be rather difficult. Since the organization spends most of its time producing peer-reviewed scientific research, it would be difficult for students to partake in that. This does not mean that its members are not accessible and I think it would be beneficial to reach out to one of the many thousands of engineers and scientists working for the UCS.

The UCS and its work is exemplary of what good scientific work looks like. The UCS is the culmination of the best and brightest scientific minds working in the United States and its work is free from the corrupt corporate and political worlds in which it actively works to distance itself from. Only once its work has been thoroughly vetted and scrutinized will the UCS publish findings and use that work for political means. The United States would be smart to follow this model and invest in the STEM fields that are growing so quickly in order to remain the preeminent scientific incubator in the world.

Forest fire proliferation

Are forest fires getting worse with climate change? In a word, yes. But, it's not all that simple. First of all, forest fires actually do a lot of good for our forests. In fact, small forest fires are good means of preventing larger ones, as the brush and dead trees on the forest floor help fires to spread very quickly. When the stuff on the bottom of the forest burns up, it cleans it up in a sense and leaves behind the taller, more resilient species. Scientists have discovered tree rings with scars in them that indicate damage from 30 (!) separate fires. Ponderosa pine trees have a very thick, fire resistant bark that helps them to weather the storm. So nature not only needs a good fire every now and then, but also has adapted to the effects of larger fires.    

As climate change advances, and it has greatly advanced, these fires are evolving from the beneficial types of fires to the dangerous sort. As forests dry up during extended droughts, and tree-killing beetles reproduce twice a year (instead of once like they used to when the winters would kill them off), and snow pack depletes due to sporadic precipitation patters, and rains become torrential and damaging, and temperatures continue to rise, and lightning strikes increase, these fires are becoming hellish. Imagine a fire burning 3.8 acres a second like the Carlton Complex fire in Washington did in 2014. At 250,000 acres this fire was the largest in state history, that is until a fire in 2015 burned more acreage yet. Out of all of the symptoms of climate change, forest fires might be the most glaring in the United States. And as global temperatures to rise, fire season is only going to continue to get longer.

The issue with forest fires is that as climate change gets worse, the fires get worse. And, as the fires get worse, climate change worsens -- it's a vicious cycle. Each tree in a forest is essentially a stick of trapped carbon, and when that tree burns, the carbon is released. The incredible natural processes that occur in our forests have a purifying effect on the air which supplies good ole oxygen to the atmosphere. With our vast forests being burned to a crisp, climate change is being accelerated and will only make the issue of forest fires worse.

Update April 12, 2016:

An article published in the New York Times today (http://www.nytimes.com/) points toward the ever lengthening fire season that climate change is causing. New Mexico has had twice as many fires this year as they did at this time last year. The first wildfire in Alaska started in February. This is highly unusual compared to typical fire seasons of years past and is indicative of the influence of the warm, dry winters that have been occurring. It appears that, sadly, McKibben was very right, climate change is going to continue to make forest fires a massive and expensive problem.




                                                                             

Plan it Green

I have spent this weekend messing around on Plan it Green: The Big Switch! It is a game created in collaboration with entities like GE and National Geographic and is a simulation based game. Plan it Green is essentially a watered down version of Sim City in which you build and upgrade buildings while thinking about environmental impact. The game forces you, the city planner, to make tough decisions as you have to power your city while balancing emissions. The game is entertaining enough
to play and certainly would be a useful learning tool for a teacher to use in the classroom. It is more geared towards students in grade school or junior high as it doesn't really have any complex moving parts. The game features informational videos about green technology being developed and gives players the chance to learn how such technology works on its most basic level (unfortunately, I haven't figured out how to take screen shots of the game yet).

Some issues I have encountered in playing this game is that it moves frustratingly slow. You would have to put in some serious hours to get your town to city size and I am afraid that students would not have enough time in the classroom to explore the game (maybe assign it as homework?). Also, I wish the developers would include better upgrades for the buildings that you construct. I spend so many resources repairing the buildings that I have already dumped plenty of money into for upgrades that I do not have enough money to grow and expand (maybe i'm not cut out for city planning).

Overall, this game would be a decent resource for students to get them to start thinking about what options are available to make their homes, and their city, more efficient and sustainable. I wish I could restart my city because honestly I did a pretty poor job of setting up my residential districts and I put a park right next to a coal power facility so now all of the kids have the black lung, I assume.


A link to the game:
http://www.planitgreenlive.com/en/play

My Discussion Leading Experieince

Meeting with local people who were so willing to share their interest in climate change was a fantastic experience. Heading into the discussion, I felt well prepared to bring what we learned in class to a discussion with people who may or may not have the breadth of knowledge that students in this class might have. We have learned a lot over the course of this semester and it was refreshing to be able to apply that knowledge to a thoughtful discussion about climate change. My table was quite diverse. We had a woman form Japan, a student from Vietnam, three current or retired professors from Kalamazoo College, and a master gardener. Each person brought their own unique take on climate change and they were all very much willing to participate fully. One of the key points that was brought up was that none of us really talked about climate change in our own social groups. This discussion lead to questioning why that might be and possible ways to work talk of climate change into conversations in a way that wasn't abrasive or standoffish. In reflection, this experience was something that I never thought I would be doing and I am glad that I participated for that reason. Even if it was in a small way, it feels as if we were able to make a difference.