Dora's+Dossier+Reviews

__ Bad Things__ - citations seem to be missing in some sections (ex. entire first page, some statistics in last paragraph) --> be sure to check that everything is cited next time - somewhat strange that it goes into details about hydrolysis but not about fermentation (yes, this is something we should all understand at this point, but if you're going to describe processes involved, it seems like a central one) - last sentence is garbled - second last paragraph sounds like a conclusion but then the dossier keeps going --> this should be incorporated into the end of the final paragraph for better flow __ Good Things__ - written very clearly, easy to follow and understand - presented very logically, also honestly, unbiased - argument is presented very well, conclusion makes sense __ Assessment of Energy Technology__ - biofuels are 'carbon-neutral' - hydrolysis of cellulose to extract sugars is expensive and inefficient --> this makes sugarcane the only easy source of sugars needed to produce fuel - ethanol yield is limited by amount of glucose available, cannot be increased by concentration of fermenting organism - Canada has cold climate, can only grow corn and wheat --> do not yield as much energy as sugarcane --> would require large amounts of land to significantly contribute fuel - excessive pesticide, herbicide and fertilizer use = bad environmental effects - using current food land for fuel land = less food; higher food, land and fuel prices - creating new cropland (clearing) = destroyed habitats, less biodiversity - converting to arable land = need for many minerals, resources, etc. for less productive land - more crops = more need for water - we should be solving problems like people not having enough food before devoting our land to making fuel QUESTION: Why did they pick solar power as the energy to compare to? CONCLUSION: agree with dossier, biofuels are not a longterm sustainable energy source --> second generation biofuels should still be used though to help with energy crisis, because they do not have as many adverse effects
 * BIOFUELS DOSSIER**

__ Bad Things__ - second sentence --> bio bio bio - first paragraph --> four sentences beginning with 'biofilm', four with 'algae' - eq'n y=t/10*sint+1 is unclear --> y=(t/10)*sin(t+1) or y=t/(10*sin(t+1))? - for comparison of solar to biofilms, they should consider the factor of which is more expensive as well - conclusion is a bit choppy __ Good Things__ - detailed, easy to understand descriptions of all processes (ex. photo bioreactor) - thorough, unbiased analysis of the energy in general - draws a good overall conclusion based on the benefits AND disadvantages of the energy __ Assessment of Energy Technology__ - can produce almost 100x more biodiesel than feedstock - open systems are inexpensive, but productivity is low --> algae v. sensitive to temp. change, pH change, etc. --> v. few locations where conditions would be ideal --> require a lot of open land --> BUT good use for nonarable land - closed systems (photo bioreactors) are expensive to build and maintain, but have higher productivity --> lots of space req'd --> DO THEY PAY OFF??? - processes for harvesting algae are either expensive, use lots of energy, or require heavy maintainance - algae can use CO2 from fossil fuel emissions --> clean atmosphere --> only some though because of toxins - very little waste from this process --> remaining biomass can be fertilizer or feed - in Canada --> no open systems b/c wrong climate, closed would be very expensive QUESTIONS: Why did they pick solar power to compare to? Is the expensive hydrolysis process mentioned in the first dossier also required to process the products of the algae? CONCLUSION: They make sense for places with the right conditions for open systems (not Canada). Closed systems would be good depending on whether or not they eventually make up for their high cost, and should be considered for Canada.
 * BIOFILMS DOSSIER**

__ Bad Things__ - sounds too forced and formal, awkward --> use simpler language and sentence structure, it will get the point across better (ex. 'tidal power appropriates the bulk motion of tides') - italics ARE NOT necessary in par. 1 - some grammatical errors --> proofread more carefully - somewhat contradictory --> talk about lots of environmental effects, then say that tidal barrages are 'essentially perfected' - random one-sentence long paragraph on pg. 4 - instead of 30 000 000 000, say thirty billion or 30 billion __Good Things__ - good choice to focus on the type of hydro power that is not already used, brief summary of other two is all that is needed - good description of how barrages work, very easy to follow - included how long it takes a barrage to compensate for initial cost, how long it lasts --> good to give long term picture __** Assessment of Energy Technology **__ - putting in a barrage in the Bay of Fundy would be destroying or at least marring a beautiful natural attraction - not very many places in Canada that could use this type of power --> maybe more effective in other countries - barrages seem as if they would disrupt ecosystems quite a bit --> flooding, unnatural water levels would destroy habitats, more turbidity = bad for aquatic life, fish migration thrown off - tidal lagoon sounds less disruptive if it would be worth the cost - very high efficiency is good (80%) - low operating and maintainance costs, but expensive initially CONCLUSION: not very practical for Canada because there are so few locations that would be practical for barrages. Barrages should be made more ecologically friendly before being considered for energy. If they could be made to disrupt ecosystems less, they would make an excellent energy source because of their efficiency and low costs (after the initial cost).
 * WATER DOSSIER**

__Bad Things__ - 'From aviary fauna using the kinetic energy of the moving air for travel to flora depending on the stream of wind for reproductive purposes, wind is a useful resource for all organisms' --> this sentence is WAY too complicated, sounds pretentious, can be stated much more clearly and simply - phrase 'driven by drag' sounds contradictory... could just be me though - would kind of like to hear a bit more about VAWT - 'Canada’s key strategy should focus on exploring these strategies'... - new material introduced in conclusion --> shouldn't do this, seems random and not terribly important --> might help in introduction instead? __ Good Things__ - logistics behind wind turbines are well-explained (i.e. considerations for wind, pg. 2) - good presentation of advantages AND disadvantages __ Assessment of Energy Technology__ - maintainance of gearboxes --> required more frequently than is economically realistic - need more durable generators for coastal locations in Canada - there are many potential areas for wind farms in Canada - extra energy can be converted to hydrogen power - off-coast turbines present a problem in transmitting energy to power stations - research being done into making turbines be able to turn with changing wind directions --> this would make the technology more valuable, energy efficient, etc. - visual pollution --> that reflection thing when driving from guest lecturer CONCLUSION: wind technology seems like a good choice for Canada since we have a lot of land for it (prairies). Seems fairly clean, not too many environmental disturbances and ways to minimize any effects it would have.
 * WIND DOSSIER**

__Bad Things__ - a bit choppy, transition between paragraphs is kind of abrupt sometimes, ex. top of page 2: first paragraph says there are environmental concerns, next says that difficulties of solar power are only in extraction - hypothetical experiment (at end) needs more justification --> what factors did you consider when you decided that one windmill and the MNR would be comparable to the roof of Thode in solar cells? did you consider the cost of each? the environmental impacts? what made a comparison of their energy outputs valid? --> compare instead on basis of cost or something, i.e. this much money invested in wind, solar and nuclear energy would produce this much energy output (or area or something) __Good Things__ - though it was only briefly mentioned, the thermal solar energy collection was well-described - paragraph about n and p-layers was well-done --> makes a lot of sense __Assessment of Energy Technology__ - requires a lot of land and lots of sunlight - no direct pollution - construction can disrupt ecosystems, silicon production requires lots of energy and produces CO2 - low efficiency b/c of minimum req'd photon energy QUESTIONS: What do you mean causes atomic energy levels to split up (pg. 2)? What height was the average windspeed on McMaster campus measured at? CONCLUSIONS: Once solar panels are made more efficient they will be more worthwhile. Then they will take up less land, thus disturbing less ecosystems, and require less materials.
 * SOLAR DOSSIER**

__Bad Things__ - some grammatical things, nothing major __Good Things__ - good introduction - explanation of flash and binary is clear, pictures help __Assessment of Energy Technology__ - water can be injected or re-injected into ground --> reduces waste, allows for generation of new sites to extract energy - Canada can/should take advantage of Ring of Fire --> unless earthquakes? - environmental effects are minimal --> BUT risk of noxious fumes/solid waste being released - can only operate at a certain rate or else reservoir will be depleted - geothermal has been found to produce more heat than fossil fuels - drilling is expensive, but after that energy is relatively inexpensive CONCLUSION: Agree with dossier --> seems like a good source of energy, more research and funding should be put towards it.
 * GEOTHERMAL DOSSIER**