High Electricity Bill? It's Probably due to your Gadgets!

Recently, the United States Energy Information Administration conducted a survey of American homes to find out  how and where Americans use their energy, comparing energy use to data from 1978. Unsurprisingly, the amount of energy used by personal electronics (computers, phones, video games, televisions) has jumped, but what IS surprising is that space heating energy use has dropped by 39%, and that Energy consumption by electronics  DOUBLED!

Article Source: Fast Company

Now, when you read the news, you often hear about high oil prices straining home energy budgets, but the real problem we should be worrying about is how much energy is being converted into electricity for our gadgets, devices, and appliances. Many people still aren't aware that phone chargers, computers, televisions, and appliances suck up power constantly as long as they're plugged in, often drawing more power per day when idling then when being used! Luckily, there are successful awareness campaigns going on educating people on the high cost of appliances in our homes, but it doesn't seem to be sinking in. Not enough people are unplugging their devices at night, powering down their computers, or running their refrigerators at 39 degrees, instead of 33. I think we should all take an hour or two out of our hectic lives to go through our homes, surveying where electricity is being sucked up, especially when our electronics aren't being used. If you are done playing xbox, unplug the power brick, and if you're done checking our e-mail at night, shut down your computer and unplug the cord. Its that simple. Not to mention, it could help pay for higher energy prices, which are certainly in our future.

Landslides in California Should Serve as a Warning

We may be pushing the limits of how we develop the land. It seems to be that land developers may be getting too greedy and neglecting the dangers of shaping the land to meet their desires for building houses and collecting money from homeowners. Recently in Hercules, CA on the east side of the SF Bay, 8 homes have been condemned due to a waterlogged hill sliding down and destroying retaining walls abutting the properties. We see this all too often: Homes in California, built against steep hillsides, taken down and demolished after the rainy season slickens the soil and causes land and mudslides. Who can't recall seeing pictures on the news of multi-million dollar hoems in Malibu falling into the sea, and landslides covering hillside developments?

Link to SFGate Article

I think its time we take a look at how little we care about the land we are building on and using, and be mindful of where we develop. Building homes should be about the environment you are entering, not how much money a young professional couple is willing to plunk down in turn for a cookie cutter box on a steep hillside. Maybe we should look at more responsible, denser development. Clean, green apartment buildings that use less energy per square foot than massive homes that suck up Air Conditioning expenses every single day. Look at the city of Vancouver: often ranked in the top 5 best cities to live in, most of its residents live in high-rise apartment buildings with gleaming blue reflective glass, passive heating systems, and short, simple commutes.

Where would you rather live?

It's become so bad in the states that now China, who is fast on track to overtake the US in economic development, is building massive American-style subdevelopments made of multi-thousand square foot homes that suck up almost as much energy as American homes. We shouldnt be leading by this example. I say we should make an effort to ditch the suburban sprawl and create a more energy-efficient city-based society. That way, we can return the once sprawling farmland back to its original status, and bring people closer together, cut down on driving, increase productivity, and create a better energy society. Thats what i want.

Computers Replacing Doctors?

A computer program that predicts and tells you whether or not you're sick:

How do you feel about that? Telling a very complex computer algorithm (think of it as a very smart "I'm Feeling Lucky" Google search) your symptoms, and in return it tells you what you may have and whether or not you require hospitalization. Its the aim of the Heritage Provider Network. The aim of this is to cut costs of hospitalization, which i agree is a big point of the healthcare issue in our country, but I feel like it may stray from its focus. Using a scientific program can't really be substituted for a real doctor's opinion, and although doctor's may be and are wrong at times, often they can do a better job at diagnosing and treating a patient than an artificial intelligence. Also, why spend so much money developing a computer program that may or may not cut costs for hospitalization when we can simply rework the existing healthcare system that overpays doctors and sinks so much of our money into malpractice insurance and pharmaceutical fees.

Tell me what you think: Good idea, or bad science?

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9215314/Health_provider_seeks_algorithm_that_can_predict_illness?source=rss_news

Fake Leaves, Real Energy

This is just exciting: Scientists led by a physicist at MIT have created an artificial leaf that converts sunlight into hydrogen and oxygen to be used for electric power.

http://www.gizmag.com/worlds-first-practical-artificial-leaf/18247/

While it doesn't in any way LOOK like a leaf, it performs the same basic functions, and can be produced cost-effectively to be applied in developing countries to power households. At first i thought it was a way to create photosynthetic cellulose in a laboratory, but this is even better. Thanks to funding from Obama's Recovery Act, they have been able to produce a stable artificial leaf using silicon and cobalt catalysts that can be placed in a jug of water and in direct sunlight to provide electricity. Its a high-tech device with low-tech implementation, making it ideal for aiding those without power. One more reason to love science every day.

Heres a brief video explaining the technology

Putting out the Fire with Ray Guns!

I'd like to geek out for just a second:

We can extinguish fires with RAY GUNS NOW!

http://www.tgdaily.com/general-sciences-features/55024-new-ray-gun-can-put-out-fires

And now to be more serious:

A team of scientists recently announced that they were able to manipulate electric fields within open-burning fires using a 600-watt (about the same as a good sized car stereo) "ray gun" device (although i highly doubt it did look like a ray gun). In the article I found on this, the scientists claim it can be used to manipulate the shape of the flames, blowing a pathway through the middle of the fire allowing firefighters or victims to escape through, and that such devices can be installed in ceilings, on ships, and cause minimal damage. All of this without using water or hazardous foam...

But wait, wouldn't there still be some water to contend with? And wouldn't that water in some way give a certain danger of electrocution? Also, I see no evidence of proper experimentation, just an italian physicist at Harvard University talking about his dreams of manipulating fire like he was Moses. I think its a neat idea, but until I see some sort of demonstration of its safety and practicality, I won't believe it. On a side note, I just hit 100 followers! Thanks guys!

The End of Nuclear Power?

I really hope that those in charge of our energy supply make the right decision, and STAY with nuclear power. Ever since the catastrophe at the Fukishima-Dai Ichi plant in Japan, the main focus of news coverage has been how dangerous nuclear power can be. However, I think we should look at this differently. This plant has 6 very large nuclear reactors, housed in a facility that is over 40 years old, on the coast with little protection, and has withstood a THIRTY FOOT tsunami that has knocked out all 3 backup power supplies. Even through all of this, nobody has died from radiation sickness, and the highest levels of radiation measured outside the evacuated zone has been minor fractions below the federal limit for caution, let alone danger. Think about it this way: if you had a Coal Power Plant hit by such a force of water, you would wash thousands of tons of coal, tillings, and hazardous chemicals into the water supply, causing untold amounts of sickness and environmental damage. The same goes for Oil. Its almost as if we've forgotten about the Deepwater Horizon spill last year: a loose security door caused a massive explosion and the release of over a hundred million gallons of oil, covering beaches and leaving behind environmental damage that still hasn't been fully accounted for. I think we should do the right thing and choose the safer option for energy, one that emits zero greenhouse gases, provides cheap and long-lasting energy, and becomes safer every day with research.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703576204576226524171107988.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

New video from the Japanese Tsunami

Its been over 2 weeks since the horrific event, and now that we are all wrapped up around the nuclear pseudo-disaster (no radiation deaths or sicknesses reported yet), we seem to be forgetting the real disaster that has struck Japan: The tsunami. new video released today shows an overhead view as water rushes in through a river and pours into a once-vibrant coastal city. As the user who posted the video puts it: "Its the most daunting Tsunami vid I've seen", and I agree with him. All we can hope is that enough people evacuated or got to high ground before this hit. keep your thoughts with the people of Japan until they can recover and rebuild.