Kieran's+Dossier+Reviews


 * "The reviews must include your group's opinion on the viability and appropriateness of the technology, your validation of the lab protocol, the overall clarity and quality of the background research, and your overall impression of each dossier."

**Group S** //Biofuel Energy Dossier//** · It’s odd that there are no citations for the second paragraph since most of the info isn’t common knowledge · I think talking about the three sources, sugars, cellulose, and starches could have been examined/described with a little more scientific know-how (ie. maybe differentiate them based on whether they’re monosaccharide, polysaccharides, ect.) · The biofuels lab conclusions were nicely incorporated into the dossier · I liked how Canada’s appropriateness for biofuel production was clearly noted and wasn’t B.S.’ed · Interesting point you made about how more pesticides, fertilizers ect. Could be used since no one is physically consuming the fuel · (bottom of 3rd page) the statement about how using natural land as crop land would decrease global biodiversity was a little severe · I was impressed that this group was realistic about their energy source and did not ultimately say, well here are all the bad things, **lists bad things,** and then go ahead and say it’s a feasible, appropriate energy source. Way to go · OVERALL - I liked this dossier. Mainly because it kept it real.

//**Biofuel Lab**//

· Nice incorporation of photosynthesis, a suggestion might be to focus on the cellular mechanism wherein the sugars/starch/cellulose are made as opposed to simply the ATP · “Carbon dioxide addition locations along the sides of the tube can maintain the pH throughout the process” sounds kind of awkward, or at least should be further elaborated · great discussion on other things that algae can do, like make biogas, clean up waste water, absorbing heavy metals · Did they say what the unit “Btu” was before they began using it?
 * //Biorefinery Energy Dossier//**

//**Biorefineries Lab**//

//**Water Energy Dossier**// · Explanation of resonance in the instance of tidal application? · I like how you focused on tidal power since it was said in the workshop that not many people were aware of this form of energy · Very detailed account of geographical/geological/environmental conditions · Sort of bold statement to say “the reliability of tidal barrages is further increased with their long plant lives of over 100 years”, how does one know this if there aren’t any barrages built yet · Funky sentence, “Because the Severn River narrows steadily, the barrage size and subsequently the cost increases as the basin area, and therefore the power generation increases · When you reference your table, the countries you mention don’t even appear in that very table · //OVERALL – Awesome writing style and overall clarity was great// Citation Style · In text- are numbers preferred? Or (Name Date) as they did? · Works cited is by alphabetical accept one entry “The World Factbook”
 * Group U**

//**Simple Harmonic Motion Lab**// · Too long, could you have cut any exercises out without eliminating important concepts ·

//**Wind Energy Dossier**// · What is an “induction generator”, which you mention on page 2 · The use of the word “could” seems a little crude at the bottom of the second page · I don’t necessarily like the choice to talk about future developments, the space might have been used a little differently · Redundant statement - significant disturbance to the habitat of flora and fauna, and disturbance and loss of natural vegetation · This statement is pretty ridiculous – “the wind turbines have reported serious physiological effects including anxiety, ringing in the ear, headaches, dizziness, sleep problems, and nausea to nearby residences” · Great final image of the boy from Malawi · OVERALL - Really awesome word choice and writing

· Nice pictures, moderately clear, perhaps would have helped to highlight or circle specific buttons that were to be pressed · The manual set up of the equipment was fairly easy and was properly explained · Looks pretty clear · There were an insufficient amount of instructions to describe how to use the SPARK equipment, especially for finding the graph of power vs time · How to find the voltage from power time graph was somewhat unclear · It was not clear where to position the anemometer Group Y ** · The phrase “lowly” populated stroke me as odd · I like how the first page flows · The statement “Solar Power is arguably the most sustainable energy source” seems a little out of place since the sentence before talked about the drawbacks of the technology · Nice level of scientific concepts regarding silicon’s valence and conduction bands · The paragraph regarding n-type and p-type crystals is quite awkward at times · I don’t know whether you had to in text cite each individual sentence one after the other since they were all from the same page of the same book · If amorphous silicon degrades in the presence of light…how will it be used in solar cells…will it not break down? · Where/how did you get your values for average power output and average solar radiation? · The last sentence/paragraph was a little sudden and could have had a bit more weight to it · OVERALL-
 * //Wind Lab//**
 * //Solar Energy Dossier//**

//**Solar Lab**// · The difference in “angle from the sun to the horizon” was confusing when the same statement was presented as “angle between · Somewhat of a time constraint · No mention of how to operate the GPS since we hadn’t used the gadget since September · Not much direction of how to use the voltmeter · First discussion question could have had a little more direction (ie. a diagram)

//**Geothermal Energy Dossier**// · Awesome opening paragraph that clearly outlines the main types of geothermal energy · How is the harvested hot water then recycled exactly? · What specific tests and surveys must be done on the land to determine if geothermal energy might be harness there (end of page 2) · (top of page 3) it would flow better to say “that” as opposed to “which” · (3rd paragraph of 3rd page) “Different from the use of fossil fuels which requires mining,” sounds rather odd · It seems hypocritical to first say that geothermal power does not negatively effect the environment, and then say that noxious gases and solid waste are emitted from the extraction process · It is not necessary to say “In conclusion” at the end of the paper · OVERALL-

· A little unimaginative, perhaps use a different research source, not just a websites · It wasn’t particularly clear whether the final discussion question was to be written about or simply thought about
 * //Geothermal Lab//**