Niko Doukas 9/29/09
Chem Blog
Water is a plentiful yet at the same time very important resource to us. Throughout time we have used water for a variety of things such as travel and to hydrate ourselves. In way, without water all of us would not be here right now. During these tough Economic times we need a plentiful and cheap source of energy source both to keep people in business and to provide jobs in a company that has a steady income. According to this article, with water, we can do all of this and more. In small towns of rural U.S., like Amargosa valley, Nevada we need breakthroughs such as this one. With the help of German developer, Solar Millennium, help can be on its way with their plans to put one of these water using, energy-creating plants in Armargosa valley. Yet when all seems good this is were the problem comes according to writer, Todd Woody. Water may be plentiful but in order to fuel just one of these plants it consumes 1.3 billion gallons of water per year. That is 1 third of all the water in the Desert Valley. BIG PROBLEM. Since so much water is needed we may need to buy from other countries. Buying from other countries could lead to problems with the U.S. For example, the U.S.’s oil crisis with the Middle East. Plus some people font want to take from the low supply of the already hungry people of the world.
I feel that using this new system of water and energy can be taken to both extremes. When most people hear this for the first time, like I did, they think that all of our problems are resolved for our high priced energy since water is such an abundant substance and it is. IF this does work it could be one of the greatest feats in efficient, clean energy producing industry. On the other hand, when it comes down to the cold, hard facts I feel that this new system should not be on the top of our priority list of experiments to help with our economic crisis. In my opinion this project will be funded and will be a huge failure. IF it does fail this will be a great concern to humanity since we will be consuming even more money, during a tough time and we cannot endure any more problems economically.
After reviewing this article I thought I was a fairly well written article, as it should be since it is after all in the New York Times. The author, Tom Woody did a great job of describing both sides of the debate towards using this new water system and produced a great article using true and useful facts.
Citation
Woody, Tom . "Alternative Energy Projects Stumble on a Need for Water." New York TImes Sep. 2009: 1+. Web. 30 Sep. 2009
2nd Article Blog Review
ReplyDeleteChris Marasco
Due 10/1
There were three aspects of Niko Doukas review of the New York Times article, “Alternative Energy Projects Stumble on a Need For Water” that were well presented; his summation of the article, translation of the article and accounting of the pros and cons associated with the topic.
In summation of the article Niko points out the importance of water as a valuable resource and its many important uses. He points out the pros and cons associated with water as a cheap source of energy and the idea of it keeping people in business and providing jobs. He also point out the hazards that according to the author Todd Woody, that accompany this new idea.
Two suggestions that would make this review better would be a more in depth look at the article and a bit more detail about the specifics related to the concept of alternative energy projects. There could be more detail in referring to what kind of problems would be derived from buying water from other countries.
Nikos review reiterated the importance of water as a natural recourse and possible energy source. His review included both the pros and cons of the alternative energy project mentioned in the article. The bottom line seems to be that there is a lot more research needed in the days ahead to arrive at plausible solutions for energy issues.
Three aspects of Niko's review that I approved of were that he gave both sides of the issue, not only giving details on the benefits of this water plan, but also the disadvantages, such as how the water plant would require "1.3 billion gallons of water per year", he told us about why finding alternative energy sources is important, and he also described the basic plan for these water plants, including locations and where the water might come from. Two things that could have improved were that Niko had a few typos including "font" instead of "want." Another thing that could be better is less repetition of "IF this does work..." One really neat thing I learned about was that, although water is abundant, using it as an energy resource at this time is not a great solution because it requires alot of water, and is too risky a gamble for the government to spend billions on. All in all, Niko managed to change my opinion on this matter and caused me to beleive that water is NOT the soultuion for alternative energy.
ReplyDeleteI liked it when Niko brought the economic recessions into the story; this is because if we become less dependent on oil we can save money. I liked it when he stated that the machine uses 1.3 billion gallons of water per year because that is a surprising detail ; and he brought awarness to the vitality of water in his blog entry. I wish Niko would explain how the machine works. Is the machine a hydroelectricity plant? Because if it is than it does not use water itself, but it transfers the kinetic energy that the water produces from moving into electricity, another form of energy. I was surprised by the fact that if we can make the machine more efficient, it could solve our dependency on oil
ReplyDelete