Ethan+Markussen

Links: https://www.bible.com/bible/1/gen.1.

Week of 10/28/15 Now, the story of the Israelite's exodus from Egypt is one that is somewhat confusing, as God is trying to convince the Pharoah to let the Israelite's go home, but God keeps "hardening the heart" of the pharoah. This means that he (the pharoah) refuses to listen to the reasoning of Moses, even after he shows him the multiple miracles he can perform on behalf of God. So, God is simultaneously trying to free the Israelites, along with making sure that the pharoah refuses to let them leave. He is performing acts counter-intuitive to the goal he is trying to achieve. Now, at first glance this looks confusing, but once you think about it, and read slightly farther ahead, you find that he had a reason, as always. His reasoning is that a large show of force once, will dissuade anyone from trying a similar tactic in the future, that is, enslaving the Israelites and putting them to work against their will.

After finally freeing the Israelites, Moses leads them into the desert, where they yell at him for not providing food or water for them. Once God hears their cries, he tells Moses the next part of his plan. He instructs Moses to hit a stone, and water will spring forth for them to drink from. After this, he begins to rain bread from the sky for his people to eat to sustain them. After this, Moses begins to play the role of adjudicator for the tribes. However, his uncle realizes wisely that this is too big a burden for a man to bear, and tells him to leave the judging of the people to God, who will make the best decision for them, and to leave the small decisions for him to judge. More coming next entry.

Week of 10/11/15 This section of the bible begins to close, as we near the end of the Book of Genesis. Joseph's father, Jacob, has his life coming to an end after a long and fulfilling time on this Earth. With his dying words, he requests two things; to be buried within the tomb of his father, and to have his second born rule the tribes of Israel when he comes of age, instead of the first born. After these orders are sworn to be followed, he gathers his sons about him, and charges them with a great purpose. They are to become the twelve tribes of Israel, each unto his own. This is to symbolize how he doesn't make his own choices in these regards, as God has spoken to him and told him of the future of his sons. After their father's passing, Joseph's brothers fear that he will seek retribution on them for selling him into slavery without their father to stop him, so they forge a letter asking Joseph to forgive them for their crimes against him. What they don't understand, however, is that Joseph is grateful, as they followed the plan God had laid out for him to become who he is today, and he thanks them and promises to provide for them and their posterity.

Thus ends the story of Genesis, telling of the beginning of creation and how the tribes of Israel came into being. We see stories like this in almost every culture; stories of their own inception and creation; how they came into being and the deity or deities that caused it. The next book is Exodus, detailing of the exiling of the tribes and the enslavement of them under the Pharaoh's of Egypt after Joseph. After many years of fruitful multiplying and living, the rulers of Egypt became wary of the tribes, seeing as how they were more plentiful than themselves. So they enslaved the tribes to their will, putting them to work under cruel taskmasters who punished and tortured them, all because they were scared that the tribes **might** go over to the side of their enemy if they ever went to war. To reiterate, instead of drawing on their shared history and long years of fruitful cohabitation to forge an alliance that could not be broken, they decided it would be easier to enslave and force hatred and fear into the ranks of the Israelites. Nowhere in history has this ever been shown to be a good idea, as enslaving a culture can only breed hatred and distrust towards the future between the groups. I will go more into detail next week on what I feel caused this to be seen as an acceptable course of action, along with going further into the story of the Israelites.

Week of 10/4/15 This week I have continued reading Genesis and have been a bit more confused as to the point of the latest story. The latest parable has been about the story of Joseph, son of Jacob and the tale of how his brothers betrayed him because he was the favorite of his father. They originally threw him into a pit to die, but realized that there was a better way in that they could also profit from his "death". So, they sold him into slavery to the Egyptians and took back his cloak of many colors to show his father that he had been killed and eaten by wild animals. His brothers were jealous of his father's affection and obvious favoritism, and I think it draws a parallel to worldly goods. You should not want to keep one thing above others, or one God above others, as there is only one thing that matters in this world of the Bible, and that is believing in your God and following his rules to achieve heaven.

Even in this story though, the mysterious God was with Joseph. God told the prison warden to be nice to Joseph, and gave him responsibilities, all part of his plan for the future. Joseph was sought out to interpret the dreams of two men who had been imprisoned by the pharaoh. After doing this, he gains a reputation as a wise man and gains the attention of the pharaoh, who asks him for help interpreting his dreams. The pharaoh has had dreams about 7 beautiful, nice stalks of corn being eaten by 7 horrible, diseased stalks. He also had a dream about 7 full, corpulent cows grazing in a meadow, then being eaten by 7 thin, sickly cows. Joseph interpreted these dreams to mean that 7 years of bountiful harvests were to be had, followed by 7 years of famine everywhere. He instructed the pharaoh to conserve and collect 20% of all the grain grown for the next 7 years and store it for the famine, so that the people could eat and not starve. This ended up coming true, and Joseph was given a new name and a wife by the pharaoh.

Week of 9/20/15 For the past week or so, I have been following up on my plan to study the Old Testament, and as such, I have decided to start at The Book of Genesis, the beginning of the Bible. Genesis is a word that means "origin", so it is fitting that the creation story of the world has such a name. I have read from Genesis 1 - Genesis 37, spanning over half of the Genesis book. The first few chapters of Genesis describe how God seemingly created the world, the stars, and everything else in the universe. He just **willed** it into being. As we know, this is impossible, as everything has a cause, and an effect. There must always be two sides of the equation that equal each other. With this method of creation, however, there is an empty side. So, according t the prophets, 0 = 1, merely because this God can simply make things exist. After this, the book continues to describe the story of Moses, and Joseph, and Abram, who adopts the name Abraham later in his life. According to this book, these men lived extraordinarily long lives, sometimes living in excess of 1000 years.

The morals projected by this section are confusing to say the least, as I have just started the story of Judah, who had multiple sons, and when God struck down the first two for disobeying him and being wicked, he ordered their wive to become a widow and mourn until his **next** son, Shelah, was of age. That's right, his first son Er first married Tamar, then he was struck down. Then Judah's second son married Tamar, and he was also struck down. Finally, his third son was set to marry Tamar, until she disguised herself as a prostitute, and seduced Judah. She became pregnant, and outwardly, it seemed she had sex without being married and conceived. When Judah discovered this, he wanted her burned at a stake, until it was revealed to him that she was pregnant with his own child. After this, he no longer had her marry his third son, and she bore twins by the name of Zerah and Pharez. In conclusion to this story, it is quite confusing how people can draw their morals and ideals from a book such as this that encourages polygamy, prostitution, and heedless slaughtering based on the judgement of one man.

Week of 9/13/15 For my independent study this semester, I want to study and read the Old Testament from the Bible. I was raised on the Christian religion as a child, going as far as attending a Catholic Elementary School for the first 5 years of my education. I have since broken off from my faith and the church, as I sought answers to questions that they could not provide. However, I still want to understand people's reasoning for blindly following in the path set forth by others, instead of questioning the motives and reasons given by the clergy as to why they should follow this religion. Hopefully this will help to open my eyes to the reasoning of others who still follow the faith, and why they do not wish for a deeper understanding of how the world works, and why and how we are here on this planet. The answer is all in the eye of the beholder, and I can not accept that we are here on the whim of an all-powerful being for the sole purpose of worshiping him.

http://www.hks.harvard.edu/news-events/news/news-archive/beyond-bailout-new-rules http://oahsdatabases.wikispaces.com/home http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/ViewpointsDetailsPage/ViewpointsDetailsWindow?failOverType=&query=&prodId=OVIC&windowstate=normal&contentModules=&display-query=&mode=view&displayGroupName=Viewpoints&dviSelectedPage=&limiter=&u=pl2623&currPage=&source=&disableHighlighting=&displayGroups=&sortBy=&zid=&search_within_results=&p=OVIC&action=e&catId=&activityType=&scanId=&documentId=GALE%7CEJ3010683218

7th Learning Journal This week, I have been reading about the fracturing of large banks that have been deemed "to big to fail." What determines if an institution is too big to fail? Many said the Titanic was too large to sink, but it sank just the same. These same banks now lauded as "impervious to failure" have already failed before, recently in the economic recession of the 2000's in America. The President of the Federal Reserve Bank in Kansas, Thomas Hoenig, believes that these banks should be allowed to fail, based upon his views of our free market economy. "For a free market system to be successful, firms must be allowed to fail based upon a predefined set of rules and principles that market participants can rely on when determining their strategies and making decisions. This is particularly important for problem financial institutions. These key principles should apply if we are talking about a small bank in Tulsa or a large international financial conglomerate in New York City." In my opinion, what Mr. Hoenig is saying is that in a market regulated not by a higher power, but by the trust and will of those involved, the institutions that can not make a profit, or at least survive in this competitive environment should be phased out, not kept afloat because of some principle that if they fail, they will take the economy with them. Later in the article, Mr. Hoenig states: "A second principle is that we must do what is best for the overall economy and not what is best for one group. We need to make sure that when one financial firm fails, the resolution process does not cause significant disruptions to financial markets and the economy or make the current problems worse." What Mr. Hoenig means here, is that the keeping afloat of some failing banks should not be happening. What should be happening, is the shoring up of existing banks that are prospering, or at least existing without running a negative balance. Thus, survival of the fittest is being enacted, not helping a limping animal keep subsisting on the scraps of those that were deemed to be better at the task at hand. When put into that analogy, it makes more sense to allow these institutions to fail, does it not? I think you might find Adam Smith's theories in Economics interesting. He was the so called founder of the free market economy. It seems that Hoenig may apply those beliefs here. useful link: http://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/08/adam-smith-economics.asp

6th Learning Journal I have been looking into the equity gap between the the poor and rich, recently, and a few articles make some good points about the higher taxing of the rich vs. the poor. I learned of a type of change called a "Pareto," in which the equity gap rises, without directly harming either party. In my mind, this sounded too good to be true, for how does one produce revenue out of nowhere, without taking it from someone or somewhere else? Regardless, the article points out that raising the minimum wage will not help the equity gap, which seems to make no sense at all to me. How does enacting a "Robin Hood" style income reform not help the poor? The point made is that when it is raised in one place, it must come from another, and rather than it coming from the rich, like the plan says, it instead comes from the paychecks of other minimum wage workers who were fired or laid off in order to continue with the status quo of the budget workers. Unfortunately, minimum wage workers are replaceable, and the companies that hire them would rather hire new workers, than keeping the old ones at at slightly higher wages, even though they have more experience, are already trained, and have been with the company for a long time.

It sounds like what people need to be aware of is the fine print. Yes, raising the minimum wage would help those minimum wage workers earning a higher rate, but it would at the expense of other minimum wage workers. It reminds me of what is happening with healthcare. When companies were required to provide health benefits for all workers working "X" amount of hours (I think 30 hours, but don't quote me), many companies cut part-time hours to less than 30 and hired more part-time workers. My husband's company did this. They also would not hire full-time employees, even when it would make more sense to.

I can see how the deregulation of the labor market could help, but it stands to lose far more for this country, as we have put years of work and protests into having rules that companies must follow. Removing those, and all our investments are for naught, and we go back to barebones "skeleton crews" run by companies to keep profits high and personnel investments low. If we removed regulating bodies like OSHA and Unions, who will make sure that companies are treating their workers correctly? Who will make sure that protection is adequate, and that jobs are done safely and with enough people to ensure no mistakes are made? Nobody will complain to their superiors if it means losing their job, as without those regulating bodies comes a lack of job security and protection. Therefore, losing those bodies will enlarge corruption in the bureaucracy of companies, who view their laborers as disposable. This means more people, competing for less jobs, that pay less money. I just can not fathom how the author of the article believes that no regulation will help the workers who are being payed minimum wage. Nice critique of the author's ideas! Part of the argument with de-regulation is to remove the laws. Some argue to remove the laws that provide loop holes to big corporations. Streamlining the tax code and regulations makes sense, but then there can't be ways around not following the law or not paying.

What about the introduction of a so-called "maximum wage?" Without debating the ethics of how our government can control private organizations by instituting maximum wages, what if the leaders of companies were only allowed to be payed 40x as much as the lowest paid worker? Companies like Costco already have this in place, where their executives can only make almost 50x as much as the lowest paid worker,with the CEO making 350k a year, compared to Walmart's CEO making almost 20 million.

5th Learning Journal Okay, next question... Play the role of an economic advisor. What would you tell kids that are in your situation? They are graduating high school in a year or two and face a grim job market after college. How do you encourage those kids to spend the money (go into debt) to go to college? I would have to hope that the dream of making money after college would be acceptable enough to drag them through college. The view that we have on college in our society of parties everynight and easy classes with no work may encourage some to go, but for the wrong reasons. College is a time of self discovery, along with learning more about your chosen area. If that does not appeal to those kids, then they should be following their previous dreams of what they wanted for their life. Something else to think about... you may be able to earn a scholarship through a school for your academic potential. This would seriously reduce your debt. For a kid like yourself, college is what you make of it. If you go to college to party, then that is what happens. If you choose to focus on academics, then that is what happens. College is not just about the party life. You can make choices that counter the common image and benefit yourself. That is what you are there for in the first place.

What is your next focus? What other questions about economics are your going to look at?

For this iteration of the journals, I have been tossing about the idea of college in my head. Do I want to go to college in order to get a job? I believe that college is an integral part of receiving a well paying job that allows for the support of a family, along with the pursuit of happiness and hobbies. For most of my life, I have thought that college was only a diverging path to the rest of your life, that it was manageable without it, but substantially harder with a lower income. But the opposite is also true, because with that lower income comes the peace of mind that comes without the guillotine that is debt hanging over your head. But what happens when you eliminate that debt? You are in a position that is strictly better financially than the first situation, along with most likely having better job security that comes with being more desirable to employers, and less replaceable due to your entrenched position in their company and your experience.

I still have no idea what I want to go to college for. If possible, I would love to have a path layed out before me that can allow me to just go through the motions of life, and pursue my hobbies that give my life a semblance of purpose. But, as the age old saying goes, if you love what you do, it doesn't seem like work. So, the question before me seems to have a simple answer, what do I want to do with my life? I still enjoy the troubles that come with managing people and policies, along with the challenges that come with renewable energy generation in our world that is so deeply entrenched into an unsustainible future. Is college the catalyst that will help me to discover myself, along with my future endeavors and where they will lead? If so, then maybe it is worth going, if not for the piece of paper that assuages the fears of employers, than just for the ability of pointing me in the direction my life will lead me.

4th Learning Journal For this journal I have been looking into the divides that separate the graduating of post-secondary schools, such as colleges and universities. In the US, where our schooling is for-profit and not subsidized heavily by the government for the majority of citizens, our percentage of citizens with college educations is around 44%. In countries like Norway or Sweden, where schooling is paid for by the government, they have a population that is educated with a 37% college degree rate. The main difference between these countries is how they go about subsidizing their schooling.

For the Scandinavian countries, to be eligible for scholarships that pay for your schooling after high school, you must pass a test that determines whether or not you will have to pay. This is a way that allows only those who actually want to achieve a higher education, than just those who think it is the next step after high school that everyone must go through. A college degree should not be something that is a dime a dozen, but something that is revered and sought after. When almost half of your citizens have advanced degrees in something that takes 4-6 years of their life, and more time after that to pay back the loans it requires, it creates a predicament. There is now a delay in these people entering into working jobs and buying things for themselves or dependents. So, the countries like Sweden and Norway that pay for the schooling have a good system also. It allows for those who have the talent, but not the financial capability to achieve higher learning, but also allows them to be free of debts after exiting this period of their lives. They can immediately start paying for things with money they hopefully earn. These countries also have higher minimum wages, along with a higher standard of living that inevitably follows the former. It does seem that the US has room for improvement. The percentages you posted above aren't that different at 7%. It sounds like from what you have shared that college in these countries is more about the education and less about the experience. The real question I have to ask about this is, why does our society believe that everyone must obtain a college degree to continue with their life? Is college life actually conducive to learning and creating an educated population? These are valid questions...

The main problem with our society, is that everyone aspires to be the best. But, not everyone can be the best, as that term is reserved for those who have dedicated themselves to mastering an art, or studying endlessly in their quest to acquire knowledge. When you have a statistic like Doctors per capita, it leads to believe that one society is better than another, purely based on the number of educated people in their midst. Imagine if out of 100,000 people, 95,000 were doctors. Sure, we all would know how to cure colds, or how to set a broken bone, but who would change your oil, or deliver your mail? Who would make your order of 3 triple-vanilla lattes? Not everyone can be educated to the highest order. There must be a social ladder, and while small movements can allow for some mobility in the rungs, large movements will destabilize the order. So, to get back to the original topic, which is a better system of post-secondary schooling? The answer is, in my own opinion, the second option. One where you can learn if you are deemed acceptable, and one where you learn where your position is on the ladder otherwise. Because when everyone is super, no one is.

You are approaching your argument from the perspective that many people who go to college don't actually want to go (they are pressured) or not aren't actually good enough to be there. College teaches you more than simply academics. There is the independence that is gained (or not), there is the persistence required to achieve, there is the learning that takes places when dealing with a large bureaucracy like a school, and many more life lessons that come with a very expensive price tag. College students also face choices when managing their time, creating a network of friends, and budgeting their money. As I said, college is more than academics.

You mention the need to have a balanced society... people to be doctors to care for the sick, mechanics to change oil, baristas to make Lattes, and you are right. A balanced society is needed, and for the most part achieved. The US has workers in all facets of our economy. Some people may be in positions in which they are overqualified, so I ask them... What can you do to remedy that? Do you want to relocate? Do you want to work your way up? If people are stuck, then they need to come up with a solution. That solution may not be the one they want to pursue, but sometimes that is life. Remember, college is a choice. This country has been built by that concept... you have the freedom to choose. If you want to spend thousands of dollars to better yourself academically and statistically go on to earn a high wage than non-college graduates you can. Do you have to? No. Is there a problem with the high cost of a college degree? Yes. Are there other, better ways for the country to educate their young people? Yes. Does a degree determine if your "Super"? No. Each of us has the individual choice to be "super" in some way... it doesn't matter what the letters after your name say. What matters is who you are, how you treat others, and what you choose to do with your life. You can be "super" to your loved ones, your customers, your friends (that is good enough for me). You can be monetarily "super" without a degree... but often that is harder.

Tell me what you think.

3rd Learning Journal For this session of my Independent Study, I have been reading about the bailouts that the government has given to private institutions. The author's opinions about the bailouts have resonated with me, and I think that they are quite correct. The main idea of the article is this: Why should the government take on this risk of paying for a business that failed if nothing is being gained? At the end of the day, once the loan is payed back or forgiven, then no money was made, instead, money was lost, as the purchasing power of that money was decreased due to inflation. So, the government, and by extension, the taxpayers, have taken on the risks associated with bailing out a failing company, with a slim chance of making back their money, and no chance of making a return on their investment. So even thought the politicians are saying the private institutions have paid their bailout back with interest, the end result is no money made for the government... The political spin.

So, the government has taken on the job of stabilizing their economy. They have hopefully acknowledged the fact they will be losing money, so that their constituents will have a better chance at making back their money, in a non-collapsing economy. With no money being able to be lent, no institutions can further themselves without making enough capital to do so, as they are not able to procure a loan. But if no one can advance their companies, they can't pay those who would help to upgrade their businesses, such as contractors or companies who sell them their equipment. So, no money is being made, because of the government not taking on the job of helping to fix the economy. With this plan, the government has taken the following saying to heart: "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." It is easier to stabilize a failing economy, then to rebuild a shattered one.

But if the companies do end up failing, even with the help of the government, then the economy has failed, regardless of the help received. Thus the economy would have failed regardless, so the investment is justified. To sum up this entry, I do believe that the government did what they should have to try and protect the economy from crashing as hard as it could have. Our government was in and is in a difficult situation. It faced many of these problems in the late 1920s and 1930s. How much is the government responsible for helping/assisting/saving the US economy? It is a question that has been debated for centuries.

Ethan -- I have spoken with Mrs. Liljestrand in the library. She can show you how to access books and journals regarding Economics. One journal that I have read in the past is T __ he Economist __. You would find this useful for some of your current issues in Economics. For example, your research of Government Bailouts. Mrs. Liljestrand explained that she can set you up an account through one of her databases that you can save/manage articles on various topics of Economics. It looks very helpful. Please see her either Monday during class or on Tuesday (B day) during class. Thanks! Mrs. Mav February 4, 2015 For this semester's independent study, I plan to study economics, and the effect that it has on our society, and societies of the past. I will be reading books and different websites that will hopefully teach me about the topic, along with guide my learning in the correct direction. For the first week, I have ordered some books on the topic and checked out a library book that I hope to read as an intro to economics. The first book I will be reading is titled,"The Road to Serfdom." It details the failure of mankind to realize the shortcomings of our past and present in preparation for the future, and our inability and failure to change our views and believe that we are ones at fault, rather than some other mystical force that wishes us harm. To fix the problems coming from our mislead ideals, we must realize that we are at fault, and change our ways of thinking and our ways that lead to the problem being caused in the first place. One of the best ways of summing up economics is the following sentence. "Economics consists of not just looking at the immediate issues caused by a change, but also the consequences of changing a policy in the long run." In essence, how will it affect the people that were not affected at first, but are affected now? Very interesting... it seems that these theories focus on humanity being reactive to various situations, rather than proactive. Did you learn of the author(s) suggestions for addressing the global economy today?

February 18, 2015 I have been reading the book titled,"Economics in One Lesson" this week, and i have stumbled onto a quote that I believe exemplifies how I feel about learning the subject in general. The quote is,"For statistics and history are useless in economics unless accompanied by a basic deductive understanding of the facts." I believe this statement to mean that, unless you understand the hidden lines and paths that connect everything, and understand the correlations that one event has to another, you will not accomplish anything by spouting off facts and statistics that show employment for one year versus another. Exactly... it is one thing to know stats and sound smart, but quite another to think about how the info works together and come up with your own thoughts and ideas... that is true learning and synthesis! The real question that should be asked is not if 20000 people were hired by Company A, you should be asking if Company A hired 20000 people because they had enough profit from last year to justify it, versus why Company B, who seemed to be in the same boat as Company A last year, has not hired new workers? Why have they stayed stagnant, as opposed to their competitors, who have grown and been able to start paying back their loans and gather enough capital to operate in new areas? Good!

I have gotten to Chapter 7 in the book, and the title is,"The Curse of Machinery." This chapter details the advancement of labor-saving machines, and how they affect the amounts of employed people, and whether or not unions actually help workers. The chapter has a rather derogatory mood towards the unions, as it believes they promote "busy work" and hiring people who do not need to be hired. For example, why do private companies innovate, and come out with new processes that save money, like railroads and trains, when they can just hire people to carry the cargo from Chicago to New York. In the end, both methods have the same output, but have different requirements. The men need to be fed, provided with bedding, and given payments for when they are sick, as replacing a sick worker is not allowed, as it is "discriminatory" in our country. The train, on the other hand, needs only to be maintained with a strict set of instructions. It will not ask for time off, or work less efficiently depending on the time of day, it is a machine and will work just as hard as the men running it. And since those men are not employed by the transportation companies, they can then be hired by the companies who manufacture the trains, as since they are more efficient, more companies will by purchasing them to start the process of paying for them. So therefore, what seems like a loss of labor, actually ends with a net effect of gaining more capital in the community, as more men are being payed to develop items of value to the community. They are not being payed to make useless bridges, or build houses the community does not need, but something private organizations have a need and want for. So companies need to both reflect on the value of the impact they have on society (by creating jobs within a community/helping a community thrive/enabling positive environment for families/etc) and the efficiency machines and man can bring to their job. Both factors effect the bottom line of a company's business operation and success.

Another aspect I would like to explore, is the effect of government loans on private companies. If the government should be willing to "bail out" companies who have been deemed unfit to exist by natural selection, why should the taxpayers be willing to? If this company has a terrible chance to pay back the capital loaned to them by the government, when no other company or bank would loan them the capital needed, why should the government, and through extension, the taxpayers take on the debt of the failed company? No money is free, it must always come from somewhere, be payed by someone, whether we like it or not. So when the government bails out these failed companies, and then FORGIVES the debts that the companies now owe the government, where does the money come from? It must come from taxes, and thus the taxpayers. So therefore, the public are taking the risks of the private companies that will not pay back the money that has been given to them. The other side of this coin also holds some weight, however. These companies employ the public, to run their factories, offices, and other services. So, are the government, by extension of the taxpayers, being re payed gradually by the taxes payed by the public, who are employed by these "failed" companies? The answer must be returned on a case-by-case basis. Is there enough work needed in the community to justify the allowing of already established companies to fall? If not, the government should bail them out, otherwise their public will be unemployed and docile in their homes, without work, as they have allowed their economy to fail. If yes, then those unemployed temporarily must regain their employed status by being rehired at jobs that are not failing, although in the case of specialized workers, this might be difficult, as a skilled workman can only work in one specific field. When the entire field collapses because of circumstances unforeseen, then where must he be hired? The answer to this is a circular one, as the government should not have allowed that segment of their economy to fail in the first place. It will be interesting to see your answers to these questions. I think you will find this is an ongoing debate... especially since 2008. I will give you some research suggestions soon...

The first Learning Journal is due September 4, 2014. It should be dated and include information about what you planning on accomplishing for your Independent Project.

Sources: http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/our-energy-choices/renewable-energy/how-geothermal-energy-works.html#.VLgc_dLF-So http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_energy

Geothermal Energy

The origin of geothermal power is one of the oldest power sources. Historically, the Romans used to have their bath houses heated by springs that produced hot water. Some animals that live in prairies use the same techniques that we do to cool their homes, with pressure pulling warmer air out of a hole, the other side of the hole which has a lower pressure can be used to pull in cooler air. This technique is used in air conditioning for buildings with geothermal vents, as the rising warmer air creates a higher pressure zone. This area of higher pressure can be used to evacuate the air inside the building as it cycles air throughout, while the air being pulled in is usually run over cooling blocks to reduce the temperature. This is one possible way of cooling a building with geothermal energy. Other ways include harvesting the heat from the median temperature ranges underground that allow for cooling.

There are a few different ways to generate power from geothermal energy, a few of those being binary cycle power plants, and other options being thermal energy gathering. Binary cycle plants draw the water from the ground using pumps or cyclone separators, depending on the temperature of the water being harvested. One of the main advantages of binary plants is that they have no emissions, owing to their enclosed systems. This water is then run through heat exchangers that transfer the heat of the water into liquid that boils at lower temperatures to allow for more steam to be produced. This water is then injected back into the ground to allow for a steady draw that is renewable with no pollution. This steam is then run through turbines that produce electricity with the help of a generator. Thermal energy gathering uses holes that have been bored deep into the mantle to access heat that has been leaked through. This heat is usually generated through the breakdown of radioactive material that undergoes fission or is left over from when the earth was formed. The fisson heat makes up about 80% of the heat contained in the mantle and core. This heat then rises to the top of the tunnel where it is used to boil water or similar liquids to turn turbines.

Some other advantages of geothermal energy over traditional fuel are the costs. Over the long term, no cost is needed for the operation of the plant besides the cost of drilling heat wells and building the plant. After the initial investments are made, no other inputs besides upkeep is required, as opposed to coal or nuclear plants, where fuel must be paid for continuously, along with disposed of safely and with minimal environmental impact. Another advantage includes low heating costs for homeowners who wish to have an alternative heating and cooling source. Since the temperature where the heat is harvested from is around 60 degrees year round, it can be used for cooling in the summer as well as heating in the winter. Since this method of heating and cooling produces little to no pollution, it is extremely viable as a non-polluting method of power generation. It is already in use in multiple places around the world, with the US and Iceland leading the charge. Iceland currently heats over 95% of it public buildings and homes with geothermal energy. The US, however, heats only less than 1% of homes with geothermal power, and provides power from geothermal sources to less than 1% also. However, there is a lot of room for growth in the US, as some of the most seismically active locations such as the western seaboard have large "dry rock" deposits, which are rocks buried very deep underground that can super heat water. Although they are mostly only in the western US, it still represents a large area of our country that can be switched over to renewable sources with a little bit of work, and a lot of capital.

Biofuel

Biofuel is the fuel that is produced from recently living organisms from carbon fixation. Carbon fixation is the conversion of inorganic carbon compounds, such as carbon dioxide, into organic compounds. This process is usually called photosynthesis, or chemosynthesis if the reaction takes place in the absence of sunlight, and the reaction is used by autotrophs.

Different types of biofuels are also in production. They can be produced from virtually any kind of biomass, such as wood, food crops, or specifically engineered energy crops. These fuels are able to be produced in any all formats, such as solid, liquid, or gaseous form. Some materials are more favorable than others though, as they provide superior energy output. For instance, biodiesel has a flash point of about 300 degrees Celsius, while regular diesel has a flash point of about 125 degrees Celsius. Biodiesel is also non-toxic and biodegradable, which makes cleaning up spills after transport crashes much easier. Biodiesel is also a good solvent, and as it goes through the engine, it will dissolve residue up left by conventional diesel combustion, making the mixing of the two a good balance for the time being. Another interesting biofuel is liquid butanol, produced through ABE Fermentation, which uses acetone, butanol, and ethanol to produce gaseous and liquid products. The butanol that is produced by the reaction is the only liquid, making it simple to separate. This fuel also shows promise as it has high net energy gains and can even be distributed through existing networks without modifications. It is also less corrosive than ethanol, the current leader of biofuels in the US.

There are also different generations of biofuels. Right now, there are up to four different generations of biofuels, labeled as first, second, third, and fourth generation. First generation biofuels, such as biodiesel or ethanol, are usually made with minimal refining techniques. They are made from food crops such as corn, and raise an issue with raising food prices. As these are becoming more commonly made, it is slowly raising the global food price as they are in higher demand. Second generation biofuels have been developed to help overcome the main issue with first generation biofuels, which is the food vs. fuel debate. These fuels are made from food waste, specifically made biofuel crops, and organic waste. They are trying to become more cost-competitive when compared to existing fossil fuels, and are being tested for the energy they can produce.

Third generation biofuels are based on improvements in the bio fuel area. They are produced from specific biomass crops, such as algae. These algae have been engineered to provide low-cost, high-energy, and renewable. They can also be grown in water that is not drinkable, which lowers the drain and impact on local water sources. This allows for the usage of clean water for growing food crops and providing for people that live in under-developed areas. If these bioreactor farms were set up to provide for underdeveloped areas, the fuel could be used by to cook food or heat homes, while leaving clean water for drinking and bathing. The last generation of biofuels, the fourth generation, are very similar to the previous generation. The only major difference is the capturing of carbon dioxide during production. The carbon dioxide is captured using oxy-fuel combustion, and then stored in old, used oil fields or salt water aquifers. As a whole, this method is much better for the environment as it allows for a “negative” CO2 impact by capturing the CO2 and locking it away in formats that will not pollute the atmosphere.

Sources: [|__http://exploringgreentechnology.com/solar-energy/advantages-and-disadvantages-of-solar-energy/__] [|__http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-does-solar-power-work/__] http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/our-energy-choices/renewable-energy/how-solar-energy-works.html#.VE5UliLF_To

Solar Power

Solar power has only recently been in use for power generation. Different ways that solar power is used can be heating water to a boiling point or solar panels to generate electricity. It has a number of benefits over traditional coal power plants, one being that it produces zero CO2 emissions. Another benefit of solar power is that it is virtually limitless in it’s potential to provide clean, free energy. The sun bathes the earth in enough radiated energy to power everything on the earth for a year in just one day. That’s right, in one day, we could collect enough energy to power the earth for a year. Granted that harnessing that radiation would require building a solar array of such massive proportions that it would be unfeasible.

There are also other uses for solar energy besides having electricity generated from it. Some other applications for solar energy include heating water through reflecting sunlight onto pipes. [|__This__] heats up the metal, which in turn heats the water and can be used to cook food, heat homes, or generate power through a turbine. The most efficient way to heat water using sunlight would be using a [|__parabolic dish trough__]. This focuses all the sunlight onto a singular point into the water pipe, which then heats the water to high temperatures, allowing for it to be used for cooking or heating homes.

Solar energy works by having two layers of silicon crystals that can transfer electrons between them. These crystals have impurities added to them through a process called “doping”. Most of the [|__photovoltaic cells__] that we have nowadays have the bottom layer doped with boron so that a positive charge will be held to attract the charged electrons from the top layer that has been doped with phosphorous. Even though there is an attraction between the layers, the electrons can not travel directly, instead they must flow through an external wire that facilitates a current. Photovoltaic cells are usually around 4 inches wide, and are then grouped into larger groups called modules, which are then grouped together into the finished panels.

October 15th, 2014 Sources: [|__http://www.irena.org/documentdownloads/publications/re_technologies_cost_analysis-hydropower.pdf__] [|__http://www.small-hydro.com/about/small-scale-hydrpower.aspx__] http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=97&t=3

Hydropower

Hydropower has been used for different applications for centuries, but the central aspect has always been the same, harnessing the force of water to turn a wheel on an axle. This axle can then be used to grind grain or generate electricity inside a generator. The most non-impactive way of using hydropower would be using rivers that are naturally occuring to turn wheels, while sometimes billions of dollars are spent on massive reforming projects to move rivers closer to population areas for easier power generation.

In terms of renewable energy, the most recognizable hydropower technique is the dam. [|__Modern dams__] are the huge concrete concave structures that hold back the water and control the release of it. They have a huge impact on the ecosystem around them, as they can raise and lower water levels by large variances. As well as having a large ecosystemic impact, they are also the largest generators of renewable energy in the world, bringing in just over 80% of the world’s renewable energy. Another bonus of hydropower, is the measured amount of power generated. If a main reactor or generator goes offline, then a dam can provide that boost of power in huge amounts by literally opening the floodgates and letting water rush through into the turbines. Imagine if that was taken to the small scale, to utilise rivers around us to power small towns and cities. The decrease in use of coal and natural gas burning alone would make them pay for themselves in the decrease of pollution in just a few years.

A small scale hydropower facility in the US is rated between 10-30 MW, and can be quantified even smaller into mini (<500 kW) and then into micro (<100 kW). On the small scale front, there are a few problems that need to be solved first. Stable quantities of water flow, combined with low surge levels during periods of high rain would be a point of contention. There are a number of different designs currently used, but they are all done in small scale settings, nothing like whole towns using them for power. Imagine if they became a mainstream power generation technique, the need for fossil fuels in power plants would decrease by a fair amount. Designs like [|__this__] are used for distribution among smaller communities that have a lake/pond near them. Other designs like [|__this__] are for micro installations, and can be done by anyone with access to a river and the time to do it. It will not negatively impact the ecosystem in any lasting way, and provides enough power to serve a few families/homes. The average american household uses around 903 kWh per month, as a reference figure.

__October 2nd, 2014__ __ Sources: __ __ [|__http://energy.gov/eere/wind/how-do-wind-turbines-work__] __ __ [|__http://www.awea.org/__] __ [] __

Wind Power

Wind power has been in use for centuries for many applications, from siphoning water from streams to grinding grain for bread. The first windmill used for the production of electricity was built in Scotland in July 1887 by Professor James Blyth. The main principle of wind power is using the principles of aerodynamics to turn the blades, which turns the shaft inside a generator to produce electricity. The blades turn by having an area of low pressure and high pressure that forces the blades to rotate, much like a wing acts on an airplane. The force of lift used to turn the blades around the shaft is much stronger than the drag that acts to stop the blades, so the blades turn.

Modern windmills are often grouped together in large, flat areas with a history of having strong winds. Other factors such as access to the land, access to transmission lines, and their ability to sell their electricity generated. Lots of research goes into determining where to put the wind farms or wind projects. In general, most wind farms are located offshore where they have strong wind currents on a regular basis. Although offshore wind farms can create much more energy on a more reliable basis, the construction costs for building them offshore are much higher. If they are not offshore, then they can be grouped into two other groups, those being utility grade and distributed grade.

They are diversified by having different ratings for the production of energy. Utility grade wind farms have a certification that they produce over 100 kW of power and deliver electricity directly to a provider. Consumer grade wind farms, also called "distributed" wind mills, are used to power homes or farms, and produce under 100 kW of power. There are also two different types of wind turbines that separate them, different then the certification. There are the standard horizontal axis design that we take as the only design, and then there is a vertical axis design. The vertical axis design is named after it’s inventor, Darrieus.

Although wind farms are sustainable and consistent energy sources over time, they can vary greatly over short time periods. This is why we have no wind-only powered sections, because the strength of the wind determines how much energy is generated that day, so many wind farms are designed as auxiliary power sources used to boost energy production, but they are incapable of supporting during a blackout. So, they are used in conjunction with combustion generators to keep their energy production stable.

September 16, 2014 [|__http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/tech/hydrogen__] http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29168382 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_reforming

Hydrogen

Hydrogen being used as fuel has been in use since the 1970’s. It has been used to power the space shuttles and is used in fuel cells, which work like batteries that do not lose their charge. To charge these fuel cells, a supply of hydrogen and oxygen is required to continue producing energy and heat. Some activation energy is required to kickstart the reaction. After this kickstart, the reaction is self-sustaining as long as reactants are supplied. Along with substantial amounts and heat, burning hydrogen also produces water, which is able to be drank.

Due to hydrogen’s relative abundance and simplicity, it doesn’t really occur naturally on Earth. It is most often found combined with other elements in compounds. Since hydrogen readily forms covalent compounds with most non-metallic elements, most of the hydrogen on Earth exists in molecular forms such as in the form of water or organic compounds. A few of the more common compounds that hydrogen is found in are hydrocarbons such as methane, octane, and water.

Hydrogen is able to be separated from the hydrocarbons through a process known as reforming. One of the most common processes of reforming hydrogen is known as Steam Methane Reforming, or SMR. This is accomplished by heating steam to a temperature around 700-1100 degrees Celsius and combining it with a metal-based catalyst such as nickel and methane. This reaction will yield carbon monoxide along with hydrogen. Once you have the carbon monoxide, it is able to be put back into the reaction to form water gas with hydrogen, or it can be seperated from the water gas mixture to form more hydrogen.

Recently, researchers working at Glasgow University have made a breakthrough in hydrogen fuel processing from water. They have found a way to increase production of hydrogen to as high as 30x faster than the leading industrial process. They have accomplished this by using something known as a redox mediator that attracts the electrons produced in the electrolysis of water. It allows the hydrogen to be put into a liquid based form, instead of gaseous. Unlike our current liquid fuels such as gasoline, this fuel doesn't require extensive refining processes to reduce the polluting elements in it. Along with being a liquid-locked hydrogen mixture, it is also inorganic, which reduces the carbon pollution output.

September 4, 2014 For my independent study, I have decided to research the pros and cons of different renewable energy sources. I want to research this because I am interested in going into this field after I graduate from high school and college. I believe that it is the future of our society to depend on renewable energy resources, because if we do not prepare for the inevitable exhaustion of fossil fuels, then the world's economy will collapse under the strain of trying to sustain the same way of life as before with the skyrocketing oil prices. Therefore, we must shift our focus on energy over towards advancing our renewable energy technology.

I plan to review a different method for generating energy every learning journal update. I will research it and provide the main pros and cons of each energy source that I review that week, along with how feasible it is to mass produce units to produce the energy with today's technology. I will use websites that focus on energy services such as, http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/tech/home, or http://www.nrdc.org/energy/renewables. Also, I will be reading into weekly updates from journals that work on further developing these technologies.