Response to "Nuclear Energy"

In creating this blog entry, I took two things into account from what my blog responders had posted. One remarked on how I hadn't touched on Nuclear Energy at all. The other ventured that a more basic approach could be useful. So the recent article I found, which is background research as it is not dated, was taken off a basic site and it covers nuclear energy. As stated in my notes, nuclear energy has NO emissions that contribute to global warming. Though I support solar and wind power the most, as both of them also have zero emissions without the added danger of nuclear waste, nuclear power loses less power in the transferring to electricity. Even efficient solar panels only have about a 20% efficiency rate while wind obviously only works when there is wind..
Nuclear energy always works, has zero emissions, and if a safe way to dispose of nuclear waste is discovered, it is definitely the way of the future.

Notes on "Nuclear Energy"

Nuclear energy is energy created in a nuclear reaction.
Nuclear reactions happen when there is a reaction within the nuclei of an atom.
Nuclear energy is produced both naturally and in man-made operations.
Man-Made: Humans can create atomic reactions through the use of fission (an atom is split by being shot at by a neutron,) or by fusion (in which the nuclei of atoms are split.
Naturally: All stars, including the sun, have nuclear reactions that happen which create both the star's light and heat.
Nuclear energy makes up about 16 percent of the worlds produced electricity.
There are no CO2 emissions, nor are there any other gaseous emissions. However, nuclear waste is created which is harmful to humans but does not contribute to global warming at all.
"Nuclear power plants need less fuel than ones which burn fossil fuels. One ton of uranium produces more energy than is produced by several million tons of coal or several million barrels of oil."
At Chernobyl in Russia, a nuclear power plant, due to faulty construction, there was a massive release of nuclear waste that is negatively affecting peoples health to this day and it renders the areas nearby unlivable.

Second Peer Blog Response

Each of the notes were very detailed and informative. Through glancing at each of the articles, the important parts of the written are present. However, all the background information relating to the article is at the beginning of the following response. As long as all the information is there, there's no concern, but try to keep all the factual information about the article in the notes so the response can be specifically for reflection.
As I said before, the responses give further information about the article and thoughtful analysis. There could definitely be more content in the responses, but the existing material is excellent. The readers want to know what the author feels about the topic, and the response is the perfect place express your opinion.
You did a great job not only sharing the various environmental problems, but also giving solutions and ideas. The next step is to keep that balance of content. Try to elaborate on different types of alternate energy. You discussed solar thoroughly, so maybe move in to nuclear or hydro. Keep an eye on Google News and other sources for the newest advancements in this topic. Your individual posts are related in a way so that the reader can follow your thought process.
Visually and technically your blog is perfect. All the links are live and the citation is proper. Although it is not required, I would suggest adding images or statistics to give depth to the blog. Everything is complete and posted, and there are even a few extra features. You are off to a great start.

Second Peer Blog Response

The notes written by the author of this blog are very thorough, and the responses all took a definite stance towards its corresponding article. I do not know much about "green" technology, so I cannot completely assess the validity of the responses, but their assertiveness had me quite convinced while I was reading them. Technology is a great thing for a continuing blog, because it is always advancing. I think this author will have plenty to explore in between now and April. The one thing this author could do a little bit better, I think, is explain basic concepts of Global warming, and green technology, for less knowledgeable people. Other than that, I can't see much wrong with the blog. It is very reader-friendly, and has an interesting visual style.

Response to"As Alternative Energy Grows, NIMBY Turns Green"

NIMBY is evil. It stands for Not in my Backyard, and what that essentially is in this context is that people who support alternative energy, and even the general green movement, will fight against having things like wind farms and solar panels in their "backyard." This is especially evident in Cape Cod, where efforts to build an immense wind farm that could power 75 percent of Cape Cod are being opposed by both the Massachusetts Historical Commission and the two most prominent local Native American tribes in the area. The Native American tribes are trying to get the sound listed as a historical site, which would block any efforts to build on it for at least a year. Edward Markey, a Massachusetts representative has urged that this wind farm be built, as it would show the world America is willing to put in the effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Notes on "As Alternative Energy Grows, NIMBY Turns Green"

A wind farm which was slated to be the first offshore wind farm in the US has been put on hold at least for now.
The wind farm project is being called Cape Wind on account of it being built off the coast of Cape Cod.
Local Native American tribes have opposed the building of the wind farm on account of the historical importance of that area off of Cape Cod.
The National Historic Register will decide within 45 days of the eleventh of November whether or not the sound will be protected or not.
The project would cost upwards of 1 billion dollars, but would be eligible for a cash subsidy and would end up consisting of about 130 wind turbines on the entire farm.
The finished project would generate 75 percent of Cape Cod's energy, and are projected to be barely noticeable.
NIMBY stands for Not in my Backyard, its used in this article as a way to emphasize that a lot of people support alternative energy sources, but as soon as they have to have the generators any where near them, they freak out. People are starting to support green energy as long as its built nowhere near them.
The article has two parts, and in the second part it states that if just two percent of the Mojave Desert was used to collect solar energy, all of the houses in California could be powered, which would cut emissions by 30 million tons a year.

Response to "Recycling Won't Save Us, but Greed Might."

Human beings depend on there being either a profit or immediate danger to create change. Or at least that's what Jon Meacham is saying in his latest article. For the most part, that's a true statement. Global warming can seem unreal to people living in a place that's not being changed drastically or noticeably by global warming. However to the people living in the Maldives, global warming is not only real, it is the reason they have been forced to essentially put aside a fund for buying a new homeland in case their current one gets submerged. So how does greed help? It simply provides an incentive, and a strong one at that, to people worldwide to invest and support alternative energy, regardless of whether it seems like the danger is immediate or even real.

Notes on "Recycling Won't Save Us, but Greed Might."

Meacham makes the argument that "My lightbulbs and Diet Coke cans are not going to make up for the CO2 pouring forth from China's coal fired plants."
Later in the article however, Meacham states a possible solution "What might begin to make up for those emissions is discovering how noncarbon sources of energy could become economically attractive."
If investors think they can make money in the alternative energy sector, then they will pour money into the sector.
Meacham implied that people won't actively see out ways to stop or reverse climate change unless there is money to be made in alternative energy.
The United Nations gave a report stating that investments in alternative energy was outpacing investments in fossil-fuels.
"Human beings change their behavior only when danger is imminent or when there is money at stake. For many Americans, global warming remains personally remote."
If alternative energy can become profitable then it can save the world AND make money at the same time.