Energy and Place
Essential Questions:
How does energy production impact place?
How does your sense of place, environmental ethic and understanding of our energy needs influence your perception and decisions relating to energy production and consumption?
How does energy production impact place?
How does your sense of place, environmental ethic and understanding of our energy needs influence your perception and decisions relating to energy production and consumption?
Below is the scientific statement that my debate group formed together. Each student in the group had to answer questions about energy production, and then the questions were all collected to create one big document.
Joint Scientific Statement | |
File Size: | 1825 kb |
File Type: | docx |
Opening and Closing Statements
Energy and Place Project Reflection
For the debate I argued for nuclear power. When this project began, I had no interest in energy production. But once I began researching nuclear power, I started to like the idea that nuclear power produces very little greenhouse gases. Personally, I think that global warming is one of the biggest problems that my generation will have to face, and nuclear power is an efficient way to lessen greenhouse gas emissions.
I was excited when I found out I was arguing for nuclear power, because I agree that nuclear power is better than coal or natural gas. I felt that the statistics of nuclear power were mostly positive, which helped persuade me to believe that nuclear power is an efficient way of producing energy.
When arguing against nuclear power, mentioning nuclear meltdowns defiantly tears on peoples emotions. But, when arguing for the motion, there are many statistics that are very powerful. My opening statement, which is the document above, contains many good statistics for the motion.
In order to better understand these issues, I would have liked to talk personally to someone in the professional field of energy production. We had multiple guest speakers, but at that point I didn't fully understand nuclear power and natural gas, so it was hard to grasp on to their ideas.
I feel very strongly for nuclear power, so I was fired up during the debate. Overall I felt that my teammates and I had strong points to make, and that our statistics overpowered by opponents.
In humanities, I wrote about my sense of place being the ocean. When I was in Belize, I was appalled by how much trash was in and near the ocean. This project connected to what I learned in chemistry in many ways. I feel very strongly about protecting our ocean and trying to limit global warming. So learning about nuclear power made me excited for what the future has to offer regarding energy and how I am going to make an effort to protect our world.
In the debate, our team worked well together. But I don't know that we presented ourselves in the best way. My posture was not always good, and we laughed at a few other things that other people said. If we were to complete another debate, I would have read our groups scientific statement so that I had knowledge about questions other than mine.
The other team felt strongly that nuclear meltdowns are a big problem, and that the mining and transportation process release large amounts of greenhouse gases. My team fought that the amount of radiation that a nuclear power plant emits is very little, and that they are efficient and powerful.
Allie mentioned in her opening statement that 300,000 were evacuated in the Chernobyl accident. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency only 200,000 people were evacuated. The other team also stated that 31 people died in the immediate aftermath of Chernobyl. The International Atomic Energy Agency says that only 28 people died in the immediate aftermath.
I was excited when I found out I was arguing for nuclear power, because I agree that nuclear power is better than coal or natural gas. I felt that the statistics of nuclear power were mostly positive, which helped persuade me to believe that nuclear power is an efficient way of producing energy.
When arguing against nuclear power, mentioning nuclear meltdowns defiantly tears on peoples emotions. But, when arguing for the motion, there are many statistics that are very powerful. My opening statement, which is the document above, contains many good statistics for the motion.
In order to better understand these issues, I would have liked to talk personally to someone in the professional field of energy production. We had multiple guest speakers, but at that point I didn't fully understand nuclear power and natural gas, so it was hard to grasp on to their ideas.
I feel very strongly for nuclear power, so I was fired up during the debate. Overall I felt that my teammates and I had strong points to make, and that our statistics overpowered by opponents.
In humanities, I wrote about my sense of place being the ocean. When I was in Belize, I was appalled by how much trash was in and near the ocean. This project connected to what I learned in chemistry in many ways. I feel very strongly about protecting our ocean and trying to limit global warming. So learning about nuclear power made me excited for what the future has to offer regarding energy and how I am going to make an effort to protect our world.
In the debate, our team worked well together. But I don't know that we presented ourselves in the best way. My posture was not always good, and we laughed at a few other things that other people said. If we were to complete another debate, I would have read our groups scientific statement so that I had knowledge about questions other than mine.
The other team felt strongly that nuclear meltdowns are a big problem, and that the mining and transportation process release large amounts of greenhouse gases. My team fought that the amount of radiation that a nuclear power plant emits is very little, and that they are efficient and powerful.
Allie mentioned in her opening statement that 300,000 were evacuated in the Chernobyl accident. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency only 200,000 people were evacuated. The other team also stated that 31 people died in the immediate aftermath of Chernobyl. The International Atomic Energy Agency says that only 28 people died in the immediate aftermath.
Semester One Project
Project Reflection
Chemistry has most definitely had a big effect on the past, present and future. The discovery of elements was just the start of what has been a long history. As scientists discover more and more about the basics of and in-depth, materials are constantly being improved. When arsenic was being used as a poison, doctors had no test to confirm that someone had been poisoned with arsenic. Today doctors have a specific test that they use to confirm that an individual has been poisoned with arsenic.
When looking at a polymer, it may look simple. But the structure of a polymer is a lot more that just a solid piece of atoms. Polymers are made of chains of monomers, made up of billions of atoms. The polymer can be chain-linked or linear. A good example showing the difference between the two is a happy ball and a sad ball. The happy ball is cross-linked. If you were to bounce it on the floor, it would bounce back up because the chains of monomers can slide past each other. The sad ball will not bounce because the chains cannot slide past each other because they are so tightly packed.
When looking at a polymer, it may look simple. But the structure of a polymer is a lot more that just a solid piece of atoms. Polymers are made of chains of monomers, made up of billions of atoms. The polymer can be chain-linked or linear. A good example showing the difference between the two is a happy ball and a sad ball. The happy ball is cross-linked. If you were to bounce it on the floor, it would bounce back up because the chains of monomers can slide past each other. The sad ball will not bounce because the chains cannot slide past each other because they are so tightly packed.