Energy and Place Chemistry Project
Essential Questions
- How does energy production impact* place?
- How does your sense of place**, environmental ethic and understanding of our energy needs influence your perception and decisions relating to energy production and consumption?
Reflection
In this exhibition, my group was debating was whether or not natural gas plants should be seen as a helpful or hurtful way of harvesting oil for energy. I was debating against the motion to support natural gas wells. Personally, though I came into this project thinking for the natural gas. Mainly on the grounds of “if not, tell me a better solution?” Of course I understood the risks that came with natural gas plants, including the potential release of methane, which is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than the carbon dioxide emitted from coal plants, but, at that point, I felt like there wasn’t really a better solution at the time. If this is the case, then the best option seems to simply use this form of energy harvesting until we can find a more efficient, cleaner energy source in the future. I still feel this, even after collecting evidence against the motion and arguing against it as well. It just really seems like the safest choice, as long as we go about it properly. Now when I say “go about it properly”, which is my biggest source of worry when it comes to natural gas, I am speaking the current lack of security measures being put into place in order keep methane and gas from leaking out of these wells. I do feel as if we put more effort into just keeping of all these potential hazards contained, there would be much less controversy over the subject. At this point in time, there are measures, as brought up in our debate, to control the amount of methane gas released from these wells, but these measures have not been put into place, and so the real safety of these wells is questionable.
Based on the evidence I have just stated, my positions did sway a bit as I studied more into the effects of natural gas. Yet, at the same time, my affirmation for man’s ability to adapt and make changes in order to keep itself alive was growing as I dug deeper into my humanities project, so I still felt sturdy about my beliefs that, at this point in time, natural gas is more positive than it is detrimental. Of course, this was simply bounded on hopes that we will fix our current dilemma with safety, but that is perfectly acceptable, as it does seem to be a possibility.
When it comes to further questions I have for this project are more about other sources of energy. I have heard solar power get a lot of flak, though I am somewhat unsure why, and it troubles me, as that was what my internship was based around, so I would really like to know why solar seems to be seen as lesser than that of its nuclear and natural gas counterparts. Also, It would be nice to know if there are any other really big breakthroughs in energy happening right now (disregarding nuclear fusion) that could really make a big difference in the way we harvest energy. If so, are they cleaner that what we studied in class? It would be very cool to know if there was such a thing, and maybe could be incorporated into next year’s agenda.
As I was going against a motion that I didn’t agree with, it was kind of difficult to argue for it. Of course I could find evidence and sling it at the other team, but it just simply was strange. I really wanted to just agree with the opposing team’s motion and just move on, but that was simply not my job. At the same time, it was interesting, because I got to see the other side of what I believed in. It did make it easier to find holes in my own argument, and it did make it easier to get a strong argument along.
As stated before, whatever swaying I did have from my position on the subject was simply denied from what I was learning about myself in humanities. I was learning a lot about myself, and how I take this whole situation, and it really made me realize that we have to at least try something if we want to get anywhere, and it seemed painfully obvious that fracking had the potential to be worlds more efficient and environmentally friendly than coal. So if this is the case, there seems to be an overwhelming argument for the motion, and so it seems that Humanities really helped me to stay firm to my initial thoughts, which is actually really cool, because, being still young, I find myself swayed quite easily if I’m given overwhelm amounts of evidence without rebuttal.
During the debate, I must say I am fairly proud of my ability to turn around some of the other team’s arguments and make them against their motion. As Kyle was saying that there are methods that could be put in place to control the methane releases, yet they weren’t, it almost seemed easy to tear apart his argument and make it seem like they were bounding their ideas of potentially false hopes. On the other hand, I know that I absolutely butchered my opening statement. This is mainly due to the fact that I did very little to none to prepare for it, so as soon as I attempted to make eye contact with the crowd, I lost my place, and had to stumble until I could look back at my paper and reignite my argument. This was really possibly one of the worst things I think I could have done, because the opening statement is where you need to make both yourself and your argument look good, and I failed to do that. Also, we were missing our seemingly “star player”, who I know is innately good at debates, but that should not matter, as that should just mean the remaining two of us have to work a bit harder to make up for what we were lacking. In the end, I wish I could go back and do a little more intensive study so I could make more factual arguments, as well as practice my opening statement, so I could get a more attention as the debate started.
In this exhibition, my group was debating was whether or not natural gas plants should be seen as a helpful or hurtful way of harvesting oil for energy. I was debating against the motion to support natural gas wells. Personally, though I came into this project thinking for the natural gas. Mainly on the grounds of “if not, tell me a better solution?” Of course I understood the risks that came with natural gas plants, including the potential release of methane, which is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than the carbon dioxide emitted from coal plants, but, at that point, I felt like there wasn’t really a better solution at the time. If this is the case, then the best option seems to simply use this form of energy harvesting until we can find a more efficient, cleaner energy source in the future. I still feel this, even after collecting evidence against the motion and arguing against it as well. It just really seems like the safest choice, as long as we go about it properly. Now when I say “go about it properly”, which is my biggest source of worry when it comes to natural gas, I am speaking the current lack of security measures being put into place in order keep methane and gas from leaking out of these wells. I do feel as if we put more effort into just keeping of all these potential hazards contained, there would be much less controversy over the subject. At this point in time, there are measures, as brought up in our debate, to control the amount of methane gas released from these wells, but these measures have not been put into place, and so the real safety of these wells is questionable.
Based on the evidence I have just stated, my positions did sway a bit as I studied more into the effects of natural gas. Yet, at the same time, my affirmation for man’s ability to adapt and make changes in order to keep itself alive was growing as I dug deeper into my humanities project, so I still felt sturdy about my beliefs that, at this point in time, natural gas is more positive than it is detrimental. Of course, this was simply bounded on hopes that we will fix our current dilemma with safety, but that is perfectly acceptable, as it does seem to be a possibility.
When it comes to further questions I have for this project are more about other sources of energy. I have heard solar power get a lot of flak, though I am somewhat unsure why, and it troubles me, as that was what my internship was based around, so I would really like to know why solar seems to be seen as lesser than that of its nuclear and natural gas counterparts. Also, It would be nice to know if there are any other really big breakthroughs in energy happening right now (disregarding nuclear fusion) that could really make a big difference in the way we harvest energy. If so, are they cleaner that what we studied in class? It would be very cool to know if there was such a thing, and maybe could be incorporated into next year’s agenda.
As I was going against a motion that I didn’t agree with, it was kind of difficult to argue for it. Of course I could find evidence and sling it at the other team, but it just simply was strange. I really wanted to just agree with the opposing team’s motion and just move on, but that was simply not my job. At the same time, it was interesting, because I got to see the other side of what I believed in. It did make it easier to find holes in my own argument, and it did make it easier to get a strong argument along.
As stated before, whatever swaying I did have from my position on the subject was simply denied from what I was learning about myself in humanities. I was learning a lot about myself, and how I take this whole situation, and it really made me realize that we have to at least try something if we want to get anywhere, and it seemed painfully obvious that fracking had the potential to be worlds more efficient and environmentally friendly than coal. So if this is the case, there seems to be an overwhelming argument for the motion, and so it seems that Humanities really helped me to stay firm to my initial thoughts, which is actually really cool, because, being still young, I find myself swayed quite easily if I’m given overwhelm amounts of evidence without rebuttal.
During the debate, I must say I am fairly proud of my ability to turn around some of the other team’s arguments and make them against their motion. As Kyle was saying that there are methods that could be put in place to control the methane releases, yet they weren’t, it almost seemed easy to tear apart his argument and make it seem like they were bounding their ideas of potentially false hopes. On the other hand, I know that I absolutely butchered my opening statement. This is mainly due to the fact that I did very little to none to prepare for it, so as soon as I attempted to make eye contact with the crowd, I lost my place, and had to stumble until I could look back at my paper and reignite my argument. This was really possibly one of the worst things I think I could have done, because the opening statement is where you need to make both yourself and your argument look good, and I failed to do that. Also, we were missing our seemingly “star player”, who I know is innately good at debates, but that should not matter, as that should just mean the remaining two of us have to work a bit harder to make up for what we were lacking. In the end, I wish I could go back and do a little more intensive study so I could make more factual arguments, as well as practice my opening statement, so I could get a more attention as the debate started.