Joshua's+Dossier+Review+Notes

__Joshua's Dossier Review Notes__

//I had a quick question: are we supposed to compare our results to theirs? How, if we don’t know what all of their results were? (Dora): I don't think we're required to... If we really wanted we could ask them what their results were, but I don't see how that can be an expectation.//


 * __Group S__**

-easy to read, no spelling mistakes and only a few grammatical errors -could have used some pictures or diagrams -the conclusion came a bit too quickly -I liked how they had all their points separate, but they should have put the conclusion in a new paragraph too -some very long paragraphs that should have been split up -very comprehensive content, and was related well to Canada -I agree with their conclusion -a lot of text, and very crammed in (double spaced?? that looked like 1.5 spaced), it was a bit hard on the eyes -it seemed like there was a lot of information that wasn’t cited -it was good that their lab results were part of the dossier, but they could have been explained in a shorter and more concise way -should have mentioned cost, and if they’re worthwhile (do they pay off? after how long?) -I agree with their conclusion to not use them
 * Biofuels Dossier**

-overall, I liked it, but it could have been a bit more refined

-I liked the lab; it was simple and quick but demonstrated concepts -we need to compare our results (once we get them) to theirs. They said that yeast concentration did not have an effect on the amount of biofuel produced, only on the rate -the Spark instructions were very clear and very helpful -they told us to plug the thermometer in, but did not mention temperature after that (I think)
 * Biofuels Lab (Ethanol)**

-easy to read: no spelling mistakes and only a few grammatical errors -the formula (on page 8) was ambiguous, and should have either been formatted or included parentheses for clarity -what is a Btu? Did they define that? -the conclusion was a bit too abrupt. It should have been longer, especially since they had extra space -should have included some pictures or diagrams, especially with the extra space -again, a lot of text, and very crammed in (was that double spaced? that looked like 1.5 spaced). It was a bit hard on the eyes -I like how they actually modelled it themselves -they made a conclusion about biofilm use in Canada, which was good, but didn’t mention their use in general. They should have made a conclusion about that -should have talked about cost, and whether or not they pay off -I agree with their conclusion about Canada, but I struggled to reach a conclusion about the rest of the world. They should have talked much more in a global sense, and then just related it to Canada after that
 * Biofilms Dossier**

-overall, I liked it, but thought it needed a general conclusion, and could have used some pictures or diagrams.

-I liked the lab; it was short and concise, but still important -since it was a computer simulation and they knew what our results would be, they could have done some explaining as to why our results were what they were -the second model seemed unrealistic because some things seemed to go infinitely high -could have included another model where biofuel was being removed by the user at a constant rate (to be more realistic)
 * Biofilms Lab (Maple)**


 * __Group U__**

-a lot of run-on sentences or unnecessary phrases, could be much more concise -some fact errors (i.e. “tidal stream system uses the kinetic energy of moving water to power turbines”, but ALL hydropower systems do that) -a huge number of wrong or awkward word uses, and awkward phrases, throughout the dossier, i.e. ‘striking increase in oil prices’, ‘appropriates’, ‘the gravitational forces’ (should just be ‘gravity’), ‘fully predictable’, ‘in additional to’ -some important terms are not defined, i.e. “bulk motion”, “convergence effect”, “resonance”, “horizontality of coastal morphology” -tidal range is defined twice -30,000,000,000 should have been 30 billion -Table 1 is not very useful //Overall:// -good content, they were very knowledgeable -no spelling errors -very difficult to read, many grammatical errors, poor sentence structure -should have said more about tidal streaming -should have included some diagrams -not a very strong case for the technology, should have tried to convince us much more -could have been much less specific, there was almost too much information -talked too much about the mechanisms -should have talked more about the other hydro technologies //Technology Assessment:// -at the end of the dossier, I was convinced that tidal power was not a good solution, but they concluded that it was -seems to have high environmental impacts, very expensive, very few good locations -technology needs to be researched and refined much more before it should be used
 * Water Dossier**

-overall, I didn't really like it, because I thought that it needed to be much more refined. The content was good, but the presentation was not very good. Also, I did not come to the same conclusion as them.

-there was a lot of reading in the pre-lab, most of which was unnecessary for the lab, or unrelated to the lab -the lab was way too long -some of the exercises repeated the same concepts, and so were unnecessary -discussion questions were vague and unclear about what they were asking for -the wording in exercise 5 is awkward, and makes some questions and calculations hard to do or understand
 * Simple Harmonic Motion Lab**

-many similarities to Water Dossier, a lot of run-on sentences or unnecessary phrases, could be much more concise -some fact errors (i.e. “Wind is the kinetic energy”, cooler air = lower pressure) -a huge number of wrong or awkward word uses, and awkward phrases, throughout the dossier -should have had diagrams, especially for vertical axis turbines, instead of describing them -good content, no spelling errors -a few grammatical errors -a bit difficult to read, very wordy, could have been much simpler -should have either introduced Malawi case study earlier, or not at all. It shouldn’t have been at the very end -there was very little argument, and almost no conclusion //Technology Assessment:// -I feel like I haven’t learned enough about the technology to decide whether the technology is viable or not. The dossier should have tried to convince us much more strongly.
 * Wind Dossier**

-overall, I kind of liked it, but didn’t find it particularly useful or informative

-lab was good, concise, and demonstrated concepts well -Spark was difficult to work with: the instructions could have been much more helpful. I did like the pictures, though, because those helped a bit -the power calculation should not have been divided by 100, because it made for very few significant figures -our data was not useful in the analysis
 * Wind Lab (Turbines and Dynamos)**


 * __Group Y__**

-no spelling errors, a few grammar mistakes -introductory paragraphs are very long -should have introduced methods much earlier -some data or numbers are unclear about their meaning or their significance. These should be explained more -the study comparing solar to wind to nuclear power on campus seemed a bit arbitrary. It also should have included the relative costs of these power stations -conclusion is very short, and should have talked about now -a bit too detailed, whole dossier could have been more comprehensive and more concise -the charts were good, but a bit unnecessary, and probably would have saved space to write out. Not every step needed to be shown -a diagram would have been very helpful when describing photovoltaic cells -should have talked about converting from DC to AC //Technology Assessment:// -I agree with their long-term conclusion: the technology possesses great potential but needs much research in order to increase efficiency and feasibility -I add my own short-term conclusion that solar technology in not yet ready for general commercial use (i.e. powering homes)
 * Solar Dossier**

-overall, I liked it, but thought it should have been much more general and concise. There was a lot of unnecessary detail

-it was cold outside -some ambiguous instructions (angle of sun above and angle of sun to horizon) -should have included instructions on how to use the voltmeter and ammeter -imprecise due to clouds, moving sun, etc -discussion questions were not clear about how we were supposed to answer them, they should have included some help or hints
 * Solar Cells Lab**

-no spelling or grammar mistakes -easy and pleasurable to read -very informative -I liked how they included a diagram -diagrams should have included a caption -“operating capacity” is not defined -dossier was a little too detailed, I felt like you were cramming information in -should have talked about the risks of geothermal plants: proximity to volcano and earthquake sites, possibility of causing more severe earthquakes, etc. -conclusion was a little bit short, but better than other groups -why is there an extra random page about Yellowstone? -I would have done the Literature Cited for solar and geothermal separately -I think they should have talked about direct geothermal heating (i.e. not converting to electricity, just using the heat directly) //Technology Assessment:// -seems like a good idea. I’d like to know about direct geothermal heating, though. Also, we need more research to assess maximum outtake rates, and develop cheaper drilling technologies
 * Geothermal Dossier**

-overall, I liked it. It was very comprehensive, informative, and easy to read. I think it could have been less detailed, though, and a bit more concise.

-lab was good, it was short and asked direct questions to guide our learning -the sources could have been much better. I found that they all had too much information, most of which was not relevant -it seemed silly and unnecessary to tell us to go to the same link so many times
 * Geothermal Energy Lab**