Before the rise of the Industrial era, people used energy in different ways than modern times. Energy for people in the past was mostly based on what was found in nature. First people were hunters and gatherers and their activities depended on human work for the energy to complete any task. Slowly, people began to devise plans to more efficiently gather and hunt food while conserving human energy output. New tools and ideas like land clearing lead to the rise of shifting cultivation allowed more food collection to maintain optimal human energy levels. Then animals were domesticated. With the domestication of animals and use of plows allowed for a lower human energy needed and a higher concern on getting the most energy out of animals. The advantages of cattle and then horses for work were analyzed and adapted over the years to create the largest energy output from each animal. Plus, people investigate the use of wood and charcoal as fuel for providing external energy. The search for external energy sources lead to the harvesting of water power with waterwheels from streams and rivers. Then the wind with windmills was utilized, both of which produced higher energy output than previous sources. Also, with the wind came sail ships, which would allow long transportation of people across the oceans, again utilizing external energy. Finally copper, iron, and steel were used to create better tools and items to allow for the highest energy to be obtained from other sources. Along with these was the introduction of gunpowder, a high energy origin that people could harvest for multiple uses.

Answers:
The ultimate energy source in a pre-industrial society would be the muscular exertions of people and animals as these were the backbone of “over a millennia of settled societies.”
An innovation from pre-industrial societies was the creation of the windmill because it allowed people to harvest an external energy source that was located in almost any area almost every day.
Disadvantages in the energy sources from the past were that there was not a very high energy output and several sources even needed more energy input to obtain optimal performance, so they were not cost effective.

Questions:
1-When discussing sail ships, the book mentions how the first ship to sail around the world was much smaller than some the ships used by the Romans centuries before, why did the naval technologies of people not be advanced higher earlier in time?
2-Does it seem that the foods from European agriculture allowed for larger densities of settlements and consequently the technological advantage enjoyed by Europe populations for so many centuries?3- Was it the large sailing ships or the revolution of using gunpowder that allowed for European dominance around the 16th century or was it the ability to combine the two?

Summaries
China has seen an increase in the problem of acid rain over the past decade. Coal powered plants, which count for 69 percent of China’s energy in 2004, have produced large quantities of air pollutants. Toxins like sulfuric acid can be carried over hundreds of miles in the atmosphere and deposited as precipitation. The acidic precipitation causes severe damage to forest areas in China. Both foliage and soil suffer from negative effects of acid rain. Along with forest defoliation, stream water in regions of acid rain contains a lower pH, which could destroy local ecosystems. China does recognize the problem, though and are giving the problems of air pollution and acid rain high priority. The main framework for pollution reduction is the acid-rain control zone that was created by China as the costs of air pollution at over tens of billions of dollars. Even though the problem is recognized, still the demand for energy in China causes more coal plants to be created and a continuation of environmental hazards. Reduction measures need much more support and execution in China to help prevent further damage by acid rain and air pollution.

In the 1970s surface waters in the Adirondack region was found to be acidic, starting large scale surveys to assess the damage caused by acid rain. Stream water suffers the strongest influence from acid rain. The studies have found that strongly acidic anions and base cations or base-cation surplus (BCS) has affected the stream water of the Adirondacks. To better understand the acidic change in stream water, 200 streams were analyzed in the Western Adirondack Stream Survey from 2003 to 2005. Precipitation amount was measured and sampling was carried out in different months over the two years at the streams in the Adirondacks. Also pH and BCS were analyzed in each stream. The data collected was then used to determine which streams were acidified by acid rain. Chronic acidification was then discovered in over one third of the streams surveyed, mostly in the higher elevations of the eastern Adirondacks. Mostly, the study was to support the theory that BCS was a strong identifier of acidification in streams from acid rain. The stream chemistry is the best indicator at the moment.

Answers:
The main contributors to acid rain are sulfuric and nitrogen based air pollutants expelled from dirty coal and oil plants that are carried over distance in the atmosphere and deposited as precipitation. The lowest pH listed in the readings was in Sudbury, Canada at around 3.0, while other places in China range from 5.0 4.0 and the average Adirondack stream was about a pH of 6.0. Acid rain impacts are defoliation of forest trees, soil damage, and ecosystem damage as stream waters and other surface waters become acidic, creating toxic environments for many forms of life. The focus of acid rain research is to determine the damage to vegetation and to see how acidic surface waters become from acid rain deposits. To solve the problem, stricter monitoring of coal plants and the reduction of dirty coal plants are being implemented, but not at any great rate. There can only be a solution to help decrease the amount of pollutants put into the air, but the acidic contaminates already in the atmosphere cannot be removed and the surface water cannot be neutralized without more chemicals.

1) For the streams in the Adirondacks, do the acidic streams run into larger bodies of water and have any significant damage on lake or pond ecosystems that could further affect the region?
2) China’s reduction policies do not seem to be very specific in working to fix the amount of air pollutants pumped into the atmosphere, for a growing economy like China, why are not more jobs being offered to help solve the acid rain problem more assertively? It seems like a potentially strong economical job market for the future.
3) Why has there not been a higher public push for the reduction of acid rain world wide as it seems to be a problem that effects everyplace as the air pollutants can travel far before deposited?

Coal is the least expensive and most plentiful energy source available to the United States. Unfortunately it is also one of the dirtiest fuel sources to use. Acid rain, killer smog, and large emissions of CO2 gas are just some of the negative side effects from coal use. For carbon dioxide emission, in one year the world burned five billion tons of coal and emitted 10 billion tons of carbon dioxide. The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased from 280 ppm to 380 ppm. Plus, as oil supplies dwindle, more coal is used and many of the coal plants are decades old and not environmentally friendly. As more coal is used, a larger push for environmentally sound coal plants is being made. New coal burning plants have been made recently, but not in any large quantities. One new plant in North Dakota pumps their CO2 through a pipe into Canada. There, an oil field pumps the gas into the ground to push oil out for a higher recovery. Underground has enough space to hold all of the projected carbon dioxide emissions “for centuries.” Also, in Tampa, FL a new IGCC, integrated gasification combined cycle, plant was built and produces cleaner air than traditional coal plants and is at least 15 percent more efficient. As more coal is mined in the future, the pressure for new and cleaner coal-burning plants gains more momentum, but the cost still represses building of new, environmentally friendly plants.

Answers:
The IGCC plant is not the solution to global warming because there are still many other forms of pollution that further global warmer besides just coal burning, plus, the IGCC plant still produces flue gases that contain carbon dioxide that contribute to global warming so carbon dioxide emissions are not truly reduced, but the plant can easily be changed to fix that. The reduced pollutants expelled, though, would be a large step towards lowering coal-burning part of global warming. The IGCC plants could help energy crisis, but not as a final solution. At 15 percent more efficient than normal coal plants and can be changed for carbon dioxide storage and shipment for other energy production, but coal will only last for so long and will still produce some pollution, so new energy sources need to be researched.

Questions:
1) Can the emitted carbon dioxide be sent through pipes and pressurized so it can be pumped and spin a third turbine in the IGCC plants for further energy production?
2) Instead of just sending extra carbon dioxide to pump oil out of an oil field, can it be sent to empty oil fields and stored there from not just coal plants but other carbon dioxide producing plants as well?
3) The reading suggests that IGCC plants would be more cost effective over the long run, how much could IGCC plants save over pulverized coal plant adaptations from new legislature?

Vocabulary: Iridescent-property of a surface to appear to change colors as the view angle changes

Over 350 million years ago a sedimentary rock formation was deposited under the Appalachian Mountains in the eastern United States. Called the Marcellus Shale, it contains “significant quantities of natural gas.” The deposited organic material was heated and compressed over time in the depths of the Earth, creating hydrocarbons like natural gas occurring in pore spaces in the rock. In the Marcellus Shale there could be gas pressures of 26.5 standard cubic feet of gas per cubic foot of rock and an estimate of 363 trillion cubic feet of recoverable gas that can easily cover the 23 TCF of natural gas used in the United States per year. Natural gas is being explored as it is a cheaper, greener fuel source than oil and directional drilling that produces hydraulic fractures in the shale at a 90 degree angle from the vertical. The drilling, though, requires a large water supply and problems with avoiding surface environmental pollution and incorrect fluid disposal. Three million gallons of water would be needed each treatment and nearly all of that water needs to be recovered for the gas to flow out of the shale. Water disposal technology has not kept pace allowing for adequate development of drilling for the Marcellus Shale gas.

1-The strongest argument against gas drilling is the correct water disposal of the water recovered from the drilling as it could be contaminated and affect local water supplies.
2-I think the credibility of the sources are good, but a couple sources seem to be blogs, so I would question their facts and double check them for good measure.
3-The way figure 7 can be seen as misleading is if one takes the gel as the finished product of drilling for the gas in the Marcellus Shale. Also, the bare hands of the scientist might make people believe the gel is safe for the environment, and it is not.

A) There were several estimates for how much natural gas can be extracted from the Marcellus Shale, and if the lower estimates are correct, what would be the expense of drilling and the profit from selling for the energy companies?
B) Could the water treatment plants be designed with a new filter system that binds the salts in the fluid so that they can be properly removed from the water?
C) Is any new technology being developed to decrease the amount of equipment needed at shale stimulations to help lower the impact on the surrounding environment?

Vocabulary-
Proppant-Sized particles mixed with fracturing fluid to hold fractures open after a hydraulic fracturing treatment.