Teaching High School Chemistry
  • Introduction
  • Book
  • Blog
  • Topic List
  • Teaching Resources
  • Biography
  • Contact

ocean power plant generates energy from Waves

12/21/2018

0 Comments

 
The book Chemistry on a Budget contains inexpensive chemistry labs that are useful with easy to obtain materials.
 
There are two versions of each lab, one with a ten-question conclusion and one with directions for a full lab report.  This way the teacher has the option!  Each lab is two pages to allow for one two-sided handout. 
 
A 5-Star Customer Review of Chemistry on a Budget at amazon.com states:

“[S]traight forward, to the point, using household chemicals… this is the lab book for you. 
I teach high school chemistry and this is exactly what I was looking for. Labs included simple household chemicals that could be easily found. Nice format, easy to follow along procedures, and touches on every topic of our chemistry curriculum.”
 
You can buy this lab book for $23 at amazon.com or lulu.com. It will take 1-2 weeks to get to you -- Order Now.  It’s a great resource!
 
http://www.amazon.com/Chemistry-Budget-Marjorie-R-Heesemann/dp/0578129159/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1389410170&sr=1-1&keywords=chemistry+on+a+budget

http://www.lulu.com/shop/marjorie-r-heesemann/chemistry-on-a-budget/paperback/product-21217600.html
 
*Some of you have already purchased my lab book – be sure to check out Page 141 !
 
 “World-wide demand for electricity is expected to double within the next 20 years; this, combined with commitments to significantly reduce CO2 emissions in the same time-frame are increasing the search for clean, socially acceptable methods of generating power. Ocean waves are a large, relatively untapped renewable energy resource. According to London-based Carbon Trust, wave energy can realistically provide over 2,000 TWh/year of electricity–approximately 10% of global energy needs.

Ocean waves and tidal currents are one of the most important, clean, cheap, rich, and reliable sources of renewable energy on the earth. Ocean energy in Europe has attracted a good deal of attention since 1970’s (about 30 companies and research institutes). The instability in the oil price, environmental issues, and finiteness of resources has made the Unites States to seriously investigate on ocean wave energy companies. It is sought to be a very potential and active area of research in the next decades.

Although still in the early stages of development, ocean energy can and will provide enough power to supply a substantial part of the world energy demand. The wave energy industry is sometimes compared with the wind energy industry some 25 years ago when there was neither a unique design, nor a universal agreement on its future path. Wind industry has converged to a unique design over the past quarter of a century and now is a major player in the energy industry. Having learned from the evolution of wind power, wave energy is expected to come into play in a much shorter time period.”
https://taflab.berkeley.edu/ocean-wave-energy/
 
“The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) has completed a recent analysis of the U.S. wave energy resource potential. EPRI estimates the total wave energy resource along the outer continental shelf at 2,640 TWh/yr. That is an enormous potential, considering that just 1 TWh/yr of energy will supply around 93,850 average U.S. homes with power annually. While an abundance of wave energy is available, it cannot be fully harnessed everywhere for a variety of reasons, such as other competing uses of the ocean (i.e. shipping, commercial fishing, naval operations) or environmental concerns in sensitive areas. Therefore, it is important to consider how much resource is recoverable in a given region. EPRI estimates that the total recoverable resource along the U.S. shelf edge is 1,170 TWh/yr, which is almost one third of the 4,000 TWh of electricity used in the United States each year.”
https://www.boem.gov/Ocean-Wave-Energy/
“The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) provides a number of useful maps and tools regarding wave energy resources, including a wave energy resource atlas, available at https://www.nrel.gov/water/data-tools.html.  “
 
“In 2001, more than 1000 different methods of utilization of wave energy had been patented by many different wave energy companies, most of which never even made it past the first few stages. Only a few of these projects have been shown to work in reality. The following are the three main methods that look most promising:
 
Oscillating Water Column (OWC)
An oscillating water column is partially lowered into water. It is open below the surface line with a hollow upper part filled with air. The water level within the water column increases and decreases with waves coming in resulting in compression and decompression of air. Wells-turbines are ideal for the purpose of converting this into energy, because the turbines rotate the same way independent of the direction of the airflow. A generator converts this mechanical energy into useful electricity.
 
Surface-following attenuator (Line Absorber)
The point absorber consists of a series of long unit, floating on the surface of the water following the movements of the wave.  It is this movement that is harnessed and converted to electricity in the point absorber.
A Scottish company, Pelamis Wave Power (previously known as Ocean Power Delivery), has installed a successful 2.5 MW wave farm Aguçadoura of the coast of Portugal.  This wave power plant was opened in September 2008. Below is a picture of one of the Pelamis Wave Energy Converters that is the foundation of Aguçadoura, maybe the most promising device to harness wave energy so far.
This device looks like a sea snake in the water. It consists of a series of joints that generate power as the waves move them up and down through hydraulic rams and a generator. An underwater cable moves the electricity to the shore.
 
Buoyancy Unit/Point Absorber

The buoyancy unit is floating on the waves or below the water surface, fixed to the bottom, following the vertical movements of the waves up and down.  These waves drive a pump that generates electricity.


The power generation of a typical ocean wave energy unit is about 1 MW, but we expect this output to get better along with the wave energy technology.


After several years with low activity around marine energy technologies, the need for renewable energy has pushed the interest for these technologies forward. Some countries have invested more than others when it comes to developing these methods. Britain and Portugal are currently the leading nations when it comes to ocean wave energy conversion, but several other countries are starting to grasp the potential of harnessing wave energy as well.”
http://energyinformative.org/wave-energy/
 
“[In September 19, 2016], the Navy has established a test site in Hawaii, with hopes the technology can someday be used to produce clean, renewable power for offshore fueling stations for the fleet and provide electricity to coastal communities in fuel-starved places around the world. ...

Hawaii would seem a natural site for such technology. As any surfer can tell you, it is blessed with powerful waves. The island state also has the nation's highest electricity costs—largely because of its heavy reliance on oil delivered by sea—and has a legislative mandate to get 100 percent of its energy from renewables by 2045.”
https://phys.org/news/2016-09-wave-produced-electricity-online-hawaii.html
 
Here is one design called WaveStar from Denmark:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZN5CthZhvg
 
Here is another design from Japan: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyta74Mt9v4
 
 
And here is the Swansea Bay Project from the UK:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AghbNySXp9o
 
“Advantage[s] of Wave Power [include]:

Clean and green
Because it uses only the energy of ocean waves, wave energy does not produce greenhouse gases or other pollutants like fossil fuels do.
 
Renewable and reliable
Waves are a material that cannot be used up like other conventional forms of energy such as oil, natural gas, and coal, and we won’t run out of waves any time soon. Waves will continue to hit coastlines worldwide, and therefore, they can serve as a reliable source of energy.
 
Worldwide potential
With an estimated worldwide electricity-generating potential of 2 terawatts (TW) from waves, there are many opportunities to develop this technology into one of many resources for our renewable energy future.
 
Efficient energy production
The energy density of waves along shorelines is approximately 30-40 kW/m of waves, and further out into the ocean, most waves can generate 100 kW/meter of electricity. Less than ½ mile2 of ocean has the potential to generate more than 30 MW of power, which is enough energy to power 20,000 British homes.
 
Can be built offshore
While wave energy devices can be built near shorelines, they can also be built offshore, which reduces shoreline conflicts of use such as recreation and fishing.
 
Low operation costs
Once they have been built, wave energy devices can be free to operate by themselves, unless the equipment malfunctions or damage occurs.
 
Minimum visual impact
Wave energy devices can be installed to be mostly or entirely submerged beneath the water. The devices can be installed far enough from shore to allow for minimal visual impact.
 
No fuel cost
Because wave energy uses no fuel, this dramatically lowers the cost of device operation.
 
No pollution or death
Unlike oil spills and pollution and death from fossil fuels like coal, there is virtually no pollution from the generation of electricity from waves.
 
Size advantage
Wave energy devices can be tailored to meet electricity demand, and therefore can be manufactured at different sizes that are appropriate for each location. In contrast, fossil fuels generally require large facilities in order to produce electricity.
 
Disadvantages of wave power [include:]

Current high cost of investmentBecause wave energy is still in the developmental stage, it is very costly to build wave devices. As the technology improves and the demand for renewable energy technologies increases, the costs of investment and construction of wave energy technology are expected to decrease.
 
Maintenance and weather effects
Equipment that is exposed to rugged oceanic conditions 24/7 can lead to damage to wave equipment and to corrosion from salty seawater, requiring maintenance. Oceanic storms such as hurricanes are particularly damaging to wave equipment.
 
Marine life impacts
Marine life may be harmed or displaced, or their habitats negatively impacted by the construction of wave energy devices.
 
Reduced sea usage
The physical presence of wave energy device “farms” could potentially reduce the size of shipping channels, as well as opportunities for recreation and fishing.
 
Few implemented
Thus far, only a few pilot wave energy projects have been constructed globally. Further research is necessary to determine the the lifespan of the equipment, the associated costs with running the devices, and the impacts of these machines on both human and marine life.
 
Noise
Constantly running wave energy devices can be much noisier than waves are naturally, and this could potentially be disruptive to both humans and sea life living near these devices.
 
Slow technology improvements
Wave energy has been developing since the 1700s, and yet it is still a nascent technology that needs to be more fully developed. This slow development is an impediment to investment in this type of renewable energy.
 
Difficult to transmit wave energy
It is currently very challenging to transport ocean wave-generated electricity long distances to where it will be consumed inland.
 
Visual impacts
For those people living near ocean shorelines, some types of wave energy devices can be unsightly and interfere with ocean views.”
 
https://greentumble.com/advantages-and-disadvantages-of-wave-power/
 
 
Next week is the beginning of Winter Break, so there will not be a blog post.  The next post will be Friday, 1/4/19.
 
*This Blog contains several entries that would be helpful to your chemistry classroom.  Check out the Topic List to help you to find past Blog entries.
 
Also, Write To Me about your successes, challenges, or questions in the Chemistry Classroom.
 
Remember, buying a copy of the lab book Chemistry on a Budget can be very useful to your Chemistry classroom with labs and class article ideas.

Have a great holiday!

0 Comments

london killer smog in 1952

12/14/2018

0 Comments

 
The book Chemistry on a Budget contains inexpensive chemistry labs that are useful with easy to obtain materials.
 
There are two versions of each lab, one with a ten-question conclusion and one with directions for a full lab report.  This way the teacher has the option!  Each lab is two pages to allow for one two-sided handout. 
 
A 5-Star Customer Review of Chemistry on a Budget at amazon.com states:

“[S]traight forward, to the point, using household chemicals… this is the lab book for you. 
I teach high school chemistry and this is exactly what I was looking for. Labs included simple household chemicals that could be easily found. Nice format, easy to follow along procedures, and touches on every topic of our chemistry curriculum.”
 
You can buy this lab book for $23 at amazon.com or lulu.com. It will take 1-2 weeks to get to you -- Order Now.  It’s a great resource!
 
http://www.amazon.com/Chemistry-Budget-Marjorie-R-Heesemann/dp/0578129159/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1389410170&sr=1-1&keywords=chemistry+on+a+budget

http://www.lulu.com/shop/marjorie-r-heesemann/chemistry-on-a-budget/paperback/product-21217600.html
 
*Some of you have already purchased my lab book – be sure to check out Page 141 !
 
“On December 5, 1952, a zone of high atmospheric pressure parked itself over London, bringing still air and bitter cold to the British capital. A high layer of warm air worked like a lid, trapping thick yellowish black smog over the city for four days, killing at least 4,000 and perhaps as many as 12,000 people (it's difficult to measure the exact death toll from specific air pollution events, because many of the effects are long-term). The smog reduced the whole city to a hazy twilight visibility and even worked its way into people's homes.

The main ingredient in the noxious pea soup was burning coal. Four years later, Parliament passed the Clean Air Act of 1956. The law regulated the burning of coal in some areas of London and moved coal-burning power stations away from the city. Other legislation has followed since, but London remains one of the world's hardest cities to take a deep breath in. The Guardian reports that someone dies at least once an hour in London from health problems linked to breathing polluted air, like congestive heart failure and emphysema.

But the problem extends far beyond London. Most of the world's largest cities are shrouded in smog. How bad is it? In late 2015, the Chinese government temporarily closed factories and restricted driving in Beijing to clear the capital city's air in preparation for a massive military parade. Amazed residents spent a couple of days snapping photos of clear blue skies, but less than a day after the parade, dense smog settled back over the city as if it had never left.

Atmospheric scientists actually recognize an international smog season, when air pollution tends to spike around the world, and Smog Day, the anniversary of the Great Smog, unsurprisingly falls right in the midst of it. All that foul air is taking a major toll on public health. About 7 million people a year die from diseases linked to air pollution, according to the World Health Organization. That, in turn, has an economic impact in medical expenses and lost productivity.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kionasmith/2017/12/05/take-a-deep-breath-and-remember-the-great-smog-of-1952/#e62346b55e38
 
 “The cold weather preceding and during the Great Smog led Londoners to burn more coal than usual to keep themselves warm. Post-war domestic coal tended to be of a relatively low-grade, sulphurous variety (similar to lignite coal), while conversely, better-quality ‘hard’ coals (such as anthracite coal) tended to be exported, which increased the amount of sulphur dioxide in the smoke. There were also numerous coal-fired power stations in the Greater London area, including Fulham, Battersea, Bankside, Greenwich and Kingston upon Thames, all of which added to the pollution. According to the UK's Met Office, the following pollutants were emitted each day during the smoggy period: 1,000 tonnes of smoke particles, 140 tonnes of hydrochloric acid, 14 tonnes of fluorine compounds, and 370 tonnes of sulphur dioxide which may have been converted to 800 tonnes of sulphuric acid.

Research suggests that additional pollution-prevention systems fitted at Battersea may have worsened the air quality, reducing the output of soot at the cost of increased sulphur dioxide, though this is not certain. Additionally, there was pollution and smoke from vehicle exhaust—particularly from steam locomotives and diesel-fuelled buses, which had replaced the recently abandoned electric tram system – and from other industrial and commercial sources.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Smog_of_London
 
“The Great Smog of 1952 was much more than a nuisance. It was lethal, particularly for the elderly, young children and those with respiratory problems. Heavy smokers were especially vulnerable because of their already-impaired lungs, and smoking was common at the time, especially among men.
It wasn’t until undertakers began to run out of coffins and florists out of bouquets that the deadly impact of the Great Smog was realized. Deaths from bronchitis and pneumonia increased more than sevenfold. The death rate in London’s East End increased ninefold.

Initial reports estimated that about 4,000 died prematurely in the immediate aftermath of the smog.

The detrimental effects lingered, however, and death rates remained well above normal into the summer of 1953. Many experts now estimate the Great Smog claimed at least 8,000 lives, and perhaps as many as 12,000.

The effects of the Big Smoke weren’t limited to people: Birds lost in the fog crashed into buildings. Eleven prize heifers brought to Earls Court for the famed Smithfield Show choked to death, and breeders fashioned improvised gas masks for their cattle by soaking grain sacks in whiskey.”
https://www.history.com/news/the-killer-fog-that-blanketed-london-60-years-ago
 
“During a cold snap on Dec. 5 [in 1953]…, sulphur particles mixed with fumes from burning coal and made the yellow fog smell like rotten eggs. Some Londoners reported being unable to see their feet, and transportation was canceled with the exception of the London Underground. Birds flew into buildings, and robberies increased as thieves were able to make an easy getaway.

The smog eventually lifted on Dec. 9 [1953], after cold winds swept the fumes out to the North Sea.

The incident eventually led to the Clean Air Act of 1956, restricting the burning of coal in urban areas in the United Kingdom.

A team of scientists now believe they have solved the mystery of the exact cause and nature of the fog, through lab experiments and measuring the atmosphere in China, which is home to 16 of the 20 most polluted cities in the world.

Their work was published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

'People have known that sulfate was a big contributor to the fog, and sulfuric acid particles were formed from sulfur dioxide released by coal burning for residential use and power plants, and other means,' lead author Renyi Zhang, a scientist at Texas A&M University, said in a statement.

'But how sulfur dioxide was turned into sulfuric acid was unclear. Our results showed that this process was facilitated by nitrogen dioxide, another co-product of coal burning, and occurred initially on natural fog.' ”
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/12/13/scientists-say-theyve-solved-mystery-1952-london-killer-fog/95375738/
 
“The Great Smog of 1952 caused the United Kingdom to enact stricter laws about air pollution. Many cities around the world have tried to limit how much pollution is in the air. However, smog is still a problem in cities such as Mexico City, Beijing, and Los Angeles.”
https://www.nationalgeographic.org/thisday/dec4/great-smog-1952/
 
“In a move to improve the air quality and reduce airborne pollutants, most London homes switched to natural gas and other low-emission fuels. In 1956 the implementation of the Clean Air Act (revised in 1968) forced industrial, residential, and commercial sectors to improve upon the way they generated power, move away from coal as a domestic heating source, and use cleaner-burning fuels and more fuel-efficient vehicles. The Act, however, took several years to come into full effect, during which time London continued to suffer periods of dense smog. In December 1962, an additional 750 people died from yet another great smog.”
https://www.britannica.com/event/Great-Smog-of-London
 
“The horrifying environmental disaster, caused by the combination of a high-pressure front and light winds that trapped fumes over the city, led the British government to phase out coal furnaces, and in the years since, the city has built 80 monitoring stations in an effort to be more vigilant about air quality.

Even so, the health effects of the Great Smog still persist, according to a newly published study in the American Thoracic Society's American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine.

In the study, researchers from Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health, the University of California, San Diego and University of Massachusetts studied how London's Great Smog affected early childhood health and the long-term health consequences.

The scientists found that children exposed to the Great Smog in their first year of life were nearly 20 percent more likely to develop childhood asthma than those who weren't, and nearly 10 percent more likely to have asthma as adults. “
https://www.seeker.com/londons-great-smog-of-1952-still-is-making-people-sick-1917178603.html
 
“ ‘[Texas A&M researcher Renyi Zhang stated],”People have known that sulfate was a big contributor to the [Great Fog], and sulfuric acid particles were formed from sulfur dioxide released by coal burning for residential use and power plants, and other means,’’ Zhang says.

‘But how sulfur dioxide was turned into sulfuric acid was unclear. Our results showed that this process was facilitated by nitrogen dioxide, another co-product of coal burning, and occurred initially on natural fog. Another key aspect in the conversion of sulfur dioxide to sulfate is that it produces acidic particles, which subsequently inhibits this process. Natural fog contained larger particles of several tens of micrometers in size, and the acid formed was sufficiently diluted. Evaporation of those fog particles then left smaller acidic haze particles that covered the city.’

The study shows that similar chemistry occurs frequently in China, which has battled air pollution for decades.  Of the 20 most polluted cities in the world, China is home to 16 of them, and Beijing often exceeds by many times the acceptable air standards set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
‘The difference in China is that the haze starts from much smaller nanoparticles, and the sulfate formation process is only possible with ammonia to neutralize the particles,’ Zhang adds.

‘In China, sulfur dioxide is mainly emitted by power plants, nitrogen dioxide is from power plants and automobiles, and ammonia comes from fertilizer use and automobiles. Again, the right chemical processes have to interplay for the deadly haze to occur in China. Interestingly, while the London fog was highly acidic, contemporary Chinese haze is basically neutral.’
Zhang says China has been working diligently over the past decade to lessen its air pollution problems, but persistent poor air quality often requires people to wear breathing masks during much of the day. China’s explosive industrial and manufacturing growth and urbanization over the past 25 years have contributed to the problem.

‘A better understanding of the air chemistry holds the key for development of effective regulatory actions in China,’ he adds.
‘The government has pledged to do all it can to reduce emissions going forward, but it will take time,’ he notes.  ‘We think we have helped solve the 1952 London fog mystery and also have given China some ideas of how to improve its air quality. Reduction in emissions for nitrogen oxides and ammonia is likely effective in disrupting this sulfate formation process.’ “
https://today.tamu.edu/2016/11/14/researchers-solve-mystery-of-historic-1952-london-fog-and-current-chinese-haze/
 
Past blog posts related to Chinese Air Pollution include:
 03/30/2018      China Vertical Forest Update
03/03/2017       China's Vertical Forests
06/05/2016       Air Pollution in China
 
*This Blog contains several entries that would be helpful to your chemistry classroom.  Check out the Topic List to help you to find past Blog entries.
 
Also, Write To Me about your successes, challenges, or questions in the Chemistry Classroom.
 
Remember, buying a copy of the lab book Chemistry on a Budget can be very useful to your Chemistry classroom with labs and class article ideas.

Have a great weekend!

0 Comments

global climate change and health report

12/7/2018

0 Comments

 
The book Chemistry on a Budget contains inexpensive chemistry labs that are useful with easy to obtain materials.
 
There are two versions of each lab, one with a ten-question conclusion and one with directions for a full lab report.  This way the teacher has the option!  Each lab is two pages to allow for one two-sided handout. 
 
A 5-Star Customer Review of Chemistry on a Budget at amazon.com states:

“[S]traight forward, to the point, using household chemicals… this is the lab book for you. 
I teach high school chemistry and this is exactly what I was looking for. Labs included simple household chemicals that could be easily found. Nice format, easy to follow along procedures, and touches on every topic of our chemistry curriculum.”
 
You can buy this lab book for $23 at amazon.com or lulu.com. It will take 1-2 weeks to get to you -- Order Now.  It’s a great resource!
 
http://www.amazon.com/Chemistry-Budget-Marjorie-R-Heesemann/dp/0578129159/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1389410170&sr=1-1&keywords=chemistry+on+a+budget

There are some discounts at lulu.com to 12/13/18, some significant -- check it out!
http://www.lulu.com/shop/marjorie-r-heesemann/chemistry-on-a-budget/paperback/product-21217600.html
 
*Some of you have already purchased my lab book – be sure to check out Page 141 !
 
 “Nations must triple their efforts in order to achieve the 2 °C climate target, according to the 2018 edition of UNEP’s  [United Nations Environment Programme] annual Emissions Gap Report. Although it is still possible to keep global warming to below 2 °C, the technical feasibility of bridging the 1.5 °C gap is dwindling. Researchers at PBL [PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency] were among the leading and contributing authors of this study.

If the emission gap is not closed by 2030, achieving the 2 °C temperature goal will become unlikely

Global emissions are on the rise, as national commitments to combat climate change come up short. But surging momentum from the private sector and untapped potential from innovation and green financing offer pathways to bridging the emission gap. The authors of the Emissions Gap Report 2018 present these findings, along with a sweeping review of climate action and the latest measurements of global emissions.

Global CO2 emissions increased in 2017, after three years of no growthThe evidence outlined here, just days before the start of the 24th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP24), shows global emissions have reached historic levels, at 53.5 GtCO2e, with no signs of peaking – the point when emissions switch from increasing to decreasing. The authors’ assessment shows that only 57 countries (representing 60% of global emissions) are on track to do so by 2030.”
https://www.pbl.nl/en/publications/unep-emissions-gap-report-2018
 
“The 2018 Emissions Gap Report is the flagship annual report from the UN Environment Program and acts as a report card on how countries are doing on their individual contributions to the Paris Climate Agreement; it also helps determine the gap between those expected contributions and what will be necessary to stay within the range of 1.5 to 2 degrees Celsius over pre-industrial temperatures (before burning fossil fuels for industrial needs led to major increases in greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere).
 
This year's report shows the largest gap ever, resulting from increasing emissions and slow action to mitigate.
The foreboding message in the report aligns with the recent findings in the "Special Report on 1.5 Degrees" issued last month by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that the world is failing to act fast enough to avoid the dire future climate and weather and time is quickly running out.”
https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/27/world/climate-change-un-emission-report-2018-wxc/index.html
“According to Tuesday's [11/17/2108] report, global emissions of CO2 in 2017 were 53.5 gigatons (a gigaton is 1 billion tons), the most ever released into the atmosphere, representing an increase of more than 1% over 2016 emissions.
 
Global emissions need to be 25% lower than this figure by 2030 in order to limit warming to 2 degrees Celsius and 55% lower in order to limit to 1.5 degrees, the report claims.
 
The increase in 2017 follows relatively stable global emissions from 2014 through 2016, a period that allowed for optimism that global greenhouse gas emissions may be peaking.”
 
 “There have been some promising trends, like an increase in renewable energy, with jobs in that sector rising by 5.7% between 2016 and 2017, according to the report. But the investment in renewables ‘is not yet anything like what it would need to be if we are to get to the 1.5 degrees’ -- a commitment agreed during the Paris Climate Agreement to limit average global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius from pre-Industrial Revolution levels, said Paul Ekins, professor of resources and environment policy at University College London, who was involved in the report.

Some positive trends were also identified in the form of coal phaseouts and cleaner, healthier transportation methods. But coal usage needs to be at 20% of 2010 usage levels by 2040 to meet targets, the report states.”
https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/28/health/global-climate-change-and-health-report-intl/index.html
 
If you want to see the entire report, you can view it online:
https://www.unenvironment.org/resources/emissions-gap-report-2018
 
Check these past blog posts about Global Climate Change issue:
11/06/2015      Inventions to Recycle Carbon Dioxide
​12/16/2016      Cracks in Antarctic Glacier
01/27/2017      2016 Warmest Year on Record
​06/23/2017      Antarctica Melting
07/21/2017      Converting Carbon Dioxide to Methane
10/13/2017      Overview of Global Climate Change
01/19/2018      Water-Based, Energy-Saving Air Conditioner
02/09/2018      Current Event -- South Africa Drought Update
02/02/2018      Current Event -- South Africa Drought  
06/01/2018     Film on Ocean Water Interrupts CO2 Absorption
08/03/2018     Concrete That Traps CO2 Emissions Forever
10/12/2018     New High Temperatures Predicted
                              in IPCC Report
  
*This Blog contains several entries that would be helpful to your chemistry classroom.  Check out the Topic List to help you to find past Blog entries.
 
Also, Write To Me about your successes, challenges, or questions in the Chemistry Classroom.
 
Remember, buying a copy of the lab book Chemistry on a Budget can be very useful to your Chemistry classroom with labs and class article ideas.

Have a great weekend!

0 Comments

    Author

    Marjorie R. Heesemann is a chemistry teacher with 15 years of experience who is now working to develop resources for the Chemistry classroom.

    Archives

    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014

    Categories

    All

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.