Why I Made the Switch to Google Chrome

For the longest time I've been a Firefox user. Then one day i tried Google Chrome and never switched back.

For one, Chrome is much faster than Firefox. Yes, it is underpowered and lacks all the extra features of Firefox, but man is it fast. Switching from Chrome to Firefox felt like switching from a Bugatti Veyron to a Toyota Camry. The Camry is a nice, reliable car, but I'm a sucker for speed machines.  Less features and more speed is exactly what I'm looking for.

The space efficiency in Chrome is awesome. There's no file or edit menus clogging up the top, limiting tab space. With Chrome, the tabs are giant and easy to click/see. I am a heavy tab user, as I always find articles that I want to read or am currently reading and I put it into a new tab. I also always have a number of online programs running, such as Gmail and Facebook. It's nice to have a simple tab system with so much room on top.

The plugins and add-ons on Firefox are great, but I just don't need them. Other users will obviously think differently, but for me (surfing, writing articles, YouTube, Facebook, Gmail, etc) I have no need for extra features. I'd rather take the simple system and extra speed.

Note: there are some online software that still does not support Google Chrome. If you are a heavy user of some of these programs, I recommend not switching your browser.

New Potential Habitable Planet

Researchers of the Keck Observatory in Hawaii have discovered a planet about three times the mass of the Earth right in the middle of the habitable zone, which is a certain distance from a star for liquid water to be present on the surface.The planet also seems to be rocky with a solid surface and enough gravity for an atmosphere.

The planet is tidally locked into orbit around red dwarf star Gliese 581, which means that the same side always faces the star. Any forms of life would most likely be on the border of the light side and the dark side.

Constructing a habitable zone has always been theoretical and quite abstract. Some scientists feel that there are too many variables other than distance from a star to consider for life to form. Yet there are still some well known astronomers that are very excited about this discovery. Steven Vogt, professor of astronomy at UC Santa Cruz, has stated "my own personal feeling is that the chances of life on this planet are 100 percent."

100 percent is a bit rash, especially considering the number of life-bearing planets we have found so far. But the findings are still preliminary and anything is possible. There is no telling what kind of life or what degree of intelligence could present itself, if at all. Still, the finding of a planet so similar to Earth at just 20 light years away shows the possibility for more such planets further into the universe. 

For those true believers out there, maybe the radio signal picked up from a nearby planet a couple years ago really did mean something. 

Human Body Warmth as Energy

The French are very innovative in the way they gather energy. Over 3/4th of French electricity is generated by nuclear power plants, and even more is created by reusing the nuclear material. The newest French energy project puts a new and kind of creepy meaning into French innovation. The government is installing an experimental heating system in a public housing project in Paris, which will use the warmth of human bodies to fuel it. 

The system uses heat emitted by passengers of a nearby Metro system, as well as heat generated from the train moving over the tracks. The heat is funneled to a heat exchanger that pushes the warm air into the building pipes. Of course, the system is also supplemented by district heating.

Like always, I support forms of energy that make use of resources that would otherwise be wasted. Its kind of cool to think that someone is staying warm because of your beating heart, but its also kind of creepy. I'm also kind of wary on the legal implications of having my body service the needs of others without my knowledge.

It's just an experimental system, and definitely not economically feasible for areas away from the Metro (too expensive to funnel the heat). Still, hopefully it gets people thinking of ways to use the wasted energy all around us.

Wind Power

Last week saw the opening of a wind farm several miles off the coast of Kent in Britain. With 100 turbines spanning an area of 22 square miles and a 780 million pound ($1.2 billion) price tag, it is currently the world's largest offshore wind farm. the farm will increase Britain's wind power capacity by 30 percent, and at full power it could power up to 200,000 homes. Britain's national goal is to produce 15 percent of energy through renewable sources by 2020.

From an environmental standpoint, wind power is great, for obvious reasons. Environmentalists point out a few flaws (ex. noisy and a hazard to birds) but the pros outweigh the cons in this aspect. Yet it is still difficult to consider wind power as a major player in the production of electricity. Currently the United States generates about 1.80% of its electricity through wind power. The problem is not the amount of wind energy; in fact, both onshore potential capacity is 9 times greater than total U.S. electricity consumption. Offshore capacity as well is about 4 times greater than all other sources of electricity in the United States. The problem is the feasibility economically due to high capital costs of wind turbines. In the U.K., the Telegraph estimates wind power to be about 3 times more expensive than conventional power. Estimates of cost comparison vary from source to source, but most agree that wind power is significantly more expensive. In a cost competitive market, price is just too important to make it a major electricity producer.

I love wind energy as a renewable resource because of the lack of air pollutants and negligible fuel required. Hopefully in the future we can find a way to increase turbine efficiency and lower production costs. Accomplishing these goals would make investors very interested in wind energy.

Nuclear Energy

After coal, nuclear power plants are the largest source of electricity in America. In some countries, such as France, nuclear energy is the major electricity source. A lot of people hear the word nuclear and they get scared that something is going to blow up, or that the electricity is radioactive. Some people even think that the plants are fueled by nuclear explosions. In fact, nuclear energy is generated not so differently than other forms of power. Most power plants have a giant generator which is spun by high-pressure steam and a turbine. Inside of the generator are magnetic fields and coils of wire that interact and create electricity. Instead of burning coil or fossil fuels, nuclear power plants use nuclear fission to boil the water into steam.

Lets take a quick look at how nuclear fission actually works. The common substances used to fuel the nuclear reactor is uranium-235, although plutonium-239 is also used. The basic concept involves firing a neutron into a single atom. For example, firing a neutron into an atom of uranium-235 results in the breaking up of the uranium into lighter elements and scattering more neutrons. Fission occurs when the scattering atoms break down other uranium-235 atoms, creating a chain reaction. The amount of free energy released by these atoms as they split apart is millions of times that of similar mass chemical fuels release, making nuclear power a very tempting source of energy.

I believe that nuclear energy is a valuable source of energy, and will be even more so in the future. Lets take a look at some public concerns about nuclear energy:

Environmental: Because nuclear energy plants produce electricity through the fission of uranium and not the burning of fuels, it does not pollute the air with more greenhouse gases. American nuclear energy plants reduces electricity emissions of greenhouse gases by about 20 percent. 

Safety: Many people are concerned about the safety of nuclear  plants, especially since the disaster at Chernobyl. However, the nuclear industry has created a number of safe fall backs and precautions should anything like that should happen again. We also have an impressive 12,000 reactor years of experience to draw upon. People should realize that nuclear power plants are much safer today than they were decades ago.

Cost: When carbon taxes are taken into account, nuclear power is the second cheapest form of electricity, behind hydroelectric. Considering that hydroelectric power cannot sustain the population, nuclear is the most cost competitive electricity we have. More nuclear power can also help to push the U.S. off a foreign dependence of oil. 

If you take a look at my other blog, you can see that i am an advocate for investing in new business. Pumping the millions of uninvested money companies have on the sidelines into nuclear energy can be just what the United States needs to encourage economic growth. We can also see the benefits of foreign investments as well. Countries like China and India, which are desperate for cheap electricity to fuel its giant populations, would be very interested in the cost benefits of nuclear power.

Don't judge nuclear energy because it sounds dangerous or expensive. As we look to rid ourselves of fossil fuels and foreign oil, nuclear energy is the best current source of energy for future use.

Global Warming

Let me start off by saying that global warming is a fact. Among scientists, there is little disagreement that the world is a lot warmer than it was 100 years ago. In fact, it is almost impossible to deny on a scientific basis. If you express temperature change as a linear function over the time interval of 1906-2005, there is a 0.74°C increase. NASA estimates that 2009 is the warmest year since accurate measurements have been available. We can visually see the effect of temperature change on the melting and retreating of glaciers:

http://earthfirst.com/say-goodbye-to-the-world%E2%80%99s-highest-glacier/

Most scientists attribute a significant portion of this temperature change to greenhouse gases produced from human industrial processes. These gases, such as carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide, are released into the atmosphere, where they absorb and hold heat, creating the greenhouse effect. Natural greenhouse gases help to preserve a temperature that can sustain life, but adding more gas will get the Earth above its ideal temperature.

Global warming should come as no surprise. Changes in temperatures, both up and down, have been occurring for the past 18,000 years. There have been extreme temperature changes before, such as transitioning out of the ice age and more recently the Medieval Warming Period. Geologists say that the glaciers have alternated between retreating and advancing as the earth has warmed and cooled for millions of years.

Considering the history of the Earth, I do not believe that global warming is a problem that we have to solve right now. Plants and animals, including humans, will adapt to shifts in weather patterns, as adaptation is a natural process. Based on a history of extreme temperature changes, It is difficult to determine how much harm it will cause. I think that acting on global warming as a major problem in the world will cause an unnecessary amount of economic damage as we try to help the environment by cutting back on emissions, as well as other things. Do not get me wrong, I believe that the environment is one of our most valuable positions and I am an advocate for going green and conserving energy and materials. However, instead of pushing money into global warming  with our limited technology and weak knowledge, I think the money would be better spent improving the quality of life around the world and helping others reach advance states of scientific development. This way, if and when global warming does become a problem, there will be a significantly greater number of people with significantly better technology ready to fix it.