Solar Showdown Blog Post #2 (Revised, written collaboratively by Team Seniority)

Construction of our Solar Dehydrator (Nick Ho)

This past week, our group has continued working diligently on our solar dehydrator and solar oven. With our plans finalized, we have completed the construction of the two machines. We conducted research on what types of food we would be able to dehydrate based on our northeastern climate. This site has guided us with valuable solar cooking tips which have been valuable in our tests. 

Solar Dehydrator:

Solar Dehydrator at Work (Nick Ho)

The dehydrator consists of two parts, each based on other designs (here and here). The first part of our dehydrator is a pizza box which houses the food we are trying to dehydrate. The other part of the dehydrator is a cardboard box. These two parts are designed to simulate phases of convection. Our group lined the inside of the cardboard box with aluminum cans and spray painted the inside black to act as a insulator of solar heat. Additionally, we glued a piece of glass to the roof of the box to create a greenhouse effect. We also included holes in the bottom of the box so that cold air could enter the dehydrator. On the other side, we plugged in a tube through which the warmed air could travel to the pizza box. In the pizza box there is a mesh platform on which food can rest to be dehydrated. The pizza box, like the first part of the dehydrator, has a piece of glass glued to the roof of the lid. This design will be able to simulate two processes of convection as well as apply greenhouse principles. Thus far, we have noticed both parts working in conjuncture being incredibly effective. We have also applying similar concepts towards our solar cooker, which we tested after our dehydrator. 

Visual Representation of a Convection Current (emaze.com)

Weighing Bananas (Nick Ho)

The first step in testing our constructed dehydrator was slicing out and weighing banana slices. We weighed them out at 40.21 grams. We then placed it in the sun, and created a schedule for which we could check in on the dehydrator and make sure it was functioning correctly. After a few check-ins, I discovered the lid of the dehydrator's pizza box lifted open, and our dehydrated banana slices strewn around the ground. That being said, our dehydrator was very successful at completing its task. Our second test of the dehydrator found equal, if not more success. Our maximum temperature recorded was 130 degrees Fahrenheit.

Construction (Tate Singleton)

Construction (Tate Singleton)

Dehydrated Bananas (Nick Ho)

Solar Oven:

Solar Dehydrator at Work (Jay Yun)

Our oven design is quite simple, it uses an aluminum pan, an aluminum mirror and glass to collect concentrated UV radiation waves. These waves from the sun are small enough to puncture cell membranes. The UV rays puncturing the material inside the oven release energy within the membranes which is known as electromagnetic radiation which mutates the food and cooks it. We used aluminum as an insulator because of its ability to reflect UV rays, the primary method of heating back into the system and its low specific heat. We also used glass and caulking to seal the system so energy was not lost through the method of conduction and convection with colder air. The glass is also helpful to reflect UV rays back into the system that causes a greenhouse effect within the system.

Solar Dehydrator at Work (Jay Yun)

We tested our solar oven twice. The first time we tested it, we realized some fundamental flaws in the design, namely that the insulation was barely enough to hold the amount of heat we needed to cook a grilled cheese sandwich. Our sandwich was cooked, but not nearly as cooked as we wanted it to be. So we tweaked our design and added layers of foam inside the oven itself to act as insulation. Additionally, we opened the sandwich so that the cheese would melt quicker and easier. Unfortunately, the weather was not on our side. We made the best of an unfortunate situation, figuring out when the sun would be out for the longest period of time. In the end, our oven reached temperatures as high as 170 degrees Fahrenheit.

We realized, perhaps too late, one of the suggestions outlined on one of our sources. "Most food, with the exception of cookies and open-faced sandwiches, are cooked in containers with the lids on. Perhaps in the future, if we're given more freedom to test our apparatuses, we could modify our design yet again and see if the results are affected. 


Personal Reflections (written May 9, 2016):

This past week, we were given the task of finishing our solar dehydrator. Unfortunately, I was not able to go to class due to a urgent doctors appointment. My group was close to finishing but not quite. There we still some minor details that we needed to complete. By the end of class, our group became very close to finishing our dehydrator. We have to fix one thing and we will be ready for testing it. I am enthused with our teamwork and camaraderie. I have faith in our group that we will be successful in this project. We start our solar oven tomorrow and I'm looking forward to it!

-Tate Singleton '17

We are about to finish building our solar dehydrator. It seems like other teams are done with their dehydrator which worries me. The reason we are behind is because we have two parts within our dehydrator. We have a part that generates warm air and an actual dehydrator made out of a pizza box. The other reason that we are behind is we didn’t have Nick and Tate during last class. Julian and I got a lot done but I feel like we could have done much more when we had all of our members. Even though we are taking longer to build our dehydrator, I am confident that ours will work really well because we have two mechanisms that dry food. First is the direct heat energy that our pizza box receives. The second is hot air floating in that is generated from the box with aluminum cans. We will start testing our dehydrator starting tomorrow. I am also excited to move on to our solar oven. I feel like it will be a bigger challenge but with my teammates, there is no doubt we will make a great one.

-Jay Yun '16

Right now, we're behind other groups. Everyone has begun testing of their dehydrators, while we are struggling to complete the construction of ours (we still need to figure out a way in which we can hold the pizza box elevated, as well as gluing the tube to the bottom of the pizza box. However, I'm confident that we'll soon be finished building our dehydrator, and we can begin testing. I'm excited to figure out how our design could use improvement. The next step after that is building and testing our solar oven. 

- Nick Ho '16

Now that I am more comfortable with the concepts of our solar instruments, I look forward to being a more useful group member. I am still working hard within the group to accomplish the labor of the projects and well as continuing my research towards being able to explain the concepts of environmental sciences at work from a different perspective. It will be challenging to learn these concepts alone, as well as at an AP course level. I welcome the challenge and look forward to presentation as well as building a strong solar oven.

- Julian Roche '16

Solar Showdown Blog Post #2

Our Solar Dehydrator (Nick Ho)

Group member reflections:

Design for Solar Dehydrator (PC Nick Ho)

This past week, we were given the task of finishing our solar dehydrator. Unfortunately, I was not able to go to class due to a urgent doctors appointment. My group was close to finishing but not quite. There we still some minor details that we needed to complete. By the end of class, our group became very close to finishing our dehydrator. We have to fix one thing and we will be ready for testing it. I am enthused with our teamwork and camaraderie. I have faith in our group that we will be successful in this project. We start our solar oven tomorrow and I'm looking forward to it!

-Tate Singleton '17

We are about to finish building our solar dehydrator. It seems like other teams are done with their dehydrator which worries me. The reason we are behind is because we have two parts within our dehydrator. We have a part that generates warm air and an actual dehydrator made out of a pizza box. The other reason that we are behind is we didn’t have Nick and Tate during last class. Julian and I got a lot done but I feel like we could have done much more when we had all of our members. Even though we are taking longer to build our dehydrator, I am confident that ours will work really well because we have two mechanisms that dry food. First is the direct heat energy that our pizza box receives. The second is hot air floating in that is generated from the box with aluminum cans. We will start testing our dehydrator starting tomorrow. I am also excited to move on to our solar oven. I feel like it will be a bigger challenge but with my teammates, there is no doubt we will make a great one.

-Jay Yun '16

This project we are working on right now are abstract and unfamiliar because I haven't been able to apply the lessons in physics yet. I am confused on what I am supposed to be doing other than being a laborer for my group. I have done my best to help my group and limit the total groups work, but I really don’t see the point of the physics class being of help. Hopefully someone can teach me the science behind the machine so I can be of further use to my group. Our machines are coming together well and I look forward to presenting them within a week's time.

-Julian Roche '16

The second part of the dehydrator
(Nick Ho)

The inside of the first part of the
dehydrator (Nick Ho)

Today in class we continued working on our solar dehydrator. At the current juncture, we still have a significant amount of work to do. With our plans finalized, we have begun the construction of our dehydrator. It consists of two parts, each based on other designs (here and here). Additionally, we conducted research on what types of food we would be able to dehydrate. This is a good site for overall solar cooking tips. The first part of our dehydrator is a cardboard box. We lined the inside with aluminum cans, and spray painted the inside. Additionally, we glued a piece of glass to the roof of the box. On one side, we cut holes in the bottom so that air could enter the dehydrator. On the other side, we plugged in a tube through which the warmed air could travel. The tube is angled upwards, which is the direction hot air flows. The second part of our design is a pizza box. Inside the pizza box is a mesh platform on which food can rest to be dehydrated. The pizza box, like the first part of the dehydrator, has a piece of glass glued to the roof of the lid. This design will (hopefully) create an efficient convection current of hot air rising and cool air falling.

Visual representation of a convection current (emaze.com)

Right now, we're behind other groups. Everyone has begun testing of their dehydrators, while we are struggling to complete the construction of ours (we still need to figure out a way in which we can hold the pizza box elevated, as well as gluing the tube to the bottom of the pizza box. However, I'm confident that we'll soon be finished building our dehydrator, and we can begin testing. I'm excited to figure out how our design could use improvement. The next step after that is building and testing our solar oven. 

Kids at work (Tate Singleton)

Kids at work (Tate Singleton)

Kids at work (Tate Singleton)

Are We Carbon Neutral Yet?

Nick Ho
APES E Block
04/30/16
Information from class notes and assignments, compiled data provided by Alan McIntyre

Proctor's environmental mission statement is to create and sustain a carbon neutral campus. The term carbon neutral refers to the concept of generating fewer or equal carbon emissions than the amount of carbon sequestered naturally by the environment. In reference to to our campus, this means lowering our energy consumption to a sustainable level. Sequestered carbon can be stored in the ocean, terrestrial environments, or geologic formations. Terrestrial carbon sequestration is the process of absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere into biomass and soils.

The process of sequestration (Credits: ES 401, Middlebury College)

The school has put a significant amount of effort and funding into achieving this goal. The outline of the environmental mission statement includes, "sustaining a carbon-neutral footprint on campus... providing systems and services that encourage behavior, innovations, and technology that reduce our resource consumption [and] purchasing goods that are ecologically responsible." Proctor has lived this out in many ways, one of which has been the creation of the Wright Biomass Facility. Built in 2009, it replaced the school's oil furnaces with an alternative form of energy: biomass. Not only are the steam emissions from the facility clean water vapor, but the school's usage of fuel oil has dropped. Since 2006, our #4 fuel oil consumption per year has dropped 55% (from 84,334 gallons to 37,843 gallons) and our #2 fuel oil consumption per year has dropped 50.9% (81,037 gallons to 39,715 gallons).

Wright Biomass Facility (PC: Nick Ho)

Solar Power Live Production
(solrenview.com/SolrenView/mainFr.php?siteId=1771)

Another step the school has taken as a community towards carbon neutrality and reducing its carbon footprint is the construction and installations of solar panels. In 2013, 273 PV (photovoltaic) panels were installed atop the Wilkins Meeting House. Generating 70,000KW annually, they have generated 225MWh of electricity since their construction. This equates to 153 tons of CO2 emissions avoided, 7,582 nights of powering the Christmas Tree at Rockefeller Center, or 8 days of powering a search engine data center. Just last year, we added another array of PV panels on four Proctor buildings and the Proctor ski area, bringing our campus solar energy production rate to over 320,000KWH per year.

Solar Panels atop the Meeting House (PC: Nick Ho)

Other projects Proctor has begun that work towards sustainability include Peabody Dorm (2009), which is heated and cooled via geothermal energy, Sally B (2013), which utilizes energy efficient lighting, and the construction of thee new dining hall (2016), which will also take advantage of geothermal heating.

Proctor's New Dining Hall (PC: Nick Ho)

So how close is the school towards their goal of carbon neutrality. As it turns out, we already are carbon neutral. Terrestrial carbon sequestration accounts for about 2,806mtons of CO2 per year. In 2015, our CO2 output was about 1,425.9mtons of CO2, or 1,484.5mtons of CO2 if we take rough values of ground transportation into account. As it stands right now, our campus produces 1,321.5 fewer metric tons of CO2 than the carbon neutrality threshold.

In-class carbon footprint calculations (PC: Kelly Yu)

I'm excited to be a part of a community that holds environmental consciousness with such a high regard. We're in a position where it is our responsibility as contributing members of society to lower our carbon footprint as much as possible. I'm proud of our administration, trustees, faculty, and students for showing initiative to better the world from an environmental standpoint. As Jon Ferris says, "For us, the future of alternative energy at Proctor is looking bright." One point I remain curious about is the financial motivations behind these projects; how do these more efficient and cleaner forms of energy relate to the amount we pay for energy at this school?

I like the fact that at Proctor we live out our mission statements. Yesterday, on April 28th, 2016, we celebrated Eaarth Day, a time during which we all gathered at different workshops to appreciate and understand the role the environment plays in our lives. I spent the day hiking on Proctor woodlands building cairns and inukshuks and appreciating the beauty of nature.


Sources:
https://proctor.wistia.com/medias/2rzoqyx5yf
http://www.proctoracademy.org/page/On-Campus/Environmental-Stewardship
http://www.solrenview.com/SolrenView/mainFr.php?siteId=1771
http://www.middlebury.edu/media/view/255078/original/Winter_2010carbon_sequestration.pdf

Pandora's Promise Movie Review

Nick Ho
APES E Block
04/14/16
Information from Pandora's Promise, Documentary

Anti-nuclear activists (PC: Pandora's Promise)

Pandora's Promise, 2013, is a documentary set out to break down many of society's misconceptions regarding nuclear energy. It takes stories from a group of environmentalists explaining the history of nuclear power, as well as many of the reasons why the fear of nuclear power has been ingrained into our minds. Pandora's Promise explains how many of the dangers of nuclear power are simply unjustified, and how nuclear energy is the solution to solving global scale issues surrounding climate change.

"The fact that the whole nuclear business was started for a bomb, and used as a bomb, put this whole negative side to it."

Light-water reactor (PC: Pandora's Promise)

After the bombings on Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II, the idea that nuclear power's exclusive use was to destroy took hold. Soon, everyone began testing this new source of power. By the end of WWII, over 2,000 nuclear tests had taken place. Then, Admiral Rickover began to utilize this new technology for something new: submarine power. There were, in the 1950's, two kinds of reactors: breeder reactors and light-water reactors. Breeder reactors breed and recycle plutonium at a slower rate than light-water reactors, which complete nuclear processes much faster but with reduced resource efficiency and higher waste generation. Rickover opted for the light-water reactor in his submarine design.

“The enticement of the nuclear business was the fact that it was a new source of energy, a new source to generate heat, but the equivalency is huge. One pound of uranium, which is the size of my fingertip, if you could release all the energy, has the equivalent of about five thousand barrels of oil. That, to me, is amazing.”

Waste comparisons: coal, oil, hydro, solar, nuclear
(PC: Pandora's Promise)

People began to catch light of the fact that this new source of power was not only efficient, but also incredibly clean, especially compared to coal and oil processes. The first commercial nuclear plant in the US was built in Shipping Port, Pennsylvania. It was a modified version of a large submarine reactor. It was built because emissions in the area had become a cause for concern, and the low waste proposition of nuclear power was incredibly appealing. Power and light companies began to push harder for nuclear plants, and forced them to scale up quickly. Safety had become a secondary priority. Although the chances of an accident were low, they weren't no existent. 

“It must be absolutely awful to have your town wiped out, and you can’t even come and rebuild because it’s contaminated with radiation. It’s contaminated enough that it scares the shit out of you. Nobody can look you in the eye and tell you that you shouldn’t be worried. No other energy source does this, leaves huge areas contaminated by this huge invisible presence that you know can be deadly.”

Footage from inside Three Mile Island Nuclear Reactor
(PC: Pandora's Promise)

The accidents at nuclear power plants over the course of history have done a good job of instilling the innate fear of nuclear power. The first was in Three Mile Island in 1979. After a pump in the generator system broke down, many don't realize that the nuclear damage was a result of human error. Then, the Chernobyl disaster in 1986. Chernobyl was inherently unsafe. It was primarily designed to make plutonium for bombs. No nuclear stations like the one in Chernobyl were built in the West. Finally, the tsunami and earthquakes in Fukushima  (2011) caused equipment failures in the nuclear plant. 

“Misconceptions and myths about the threat of radiation persist, promoting a paralyzing fatalism among residents.”

Radiation Reading on plant in US
(30.30) (PC: Pandora's Promise)

Radiation Reading in Chernobyl (0.92)
(PC: Pandora's Promise)

Many don't realize that the dangers of nuclear power are almost insignificant compared to the background radiation we're exposed to on a daily basis. There hasn’t been a single death from the operation of commercial nuclear reactors in the US. One would get more radiation exposure by eating a banana (from Potassium) than drinking all the water from a nuclear plant in a day. After the disaster in Chernobyl, many simply decided to ignore the restrictions and go on living in their homes. Only 28 died in 1986 due to ARS (acute radiation syndrome). 19 died from 1897-2004 of various other causes. 

"We won't get rid of nuclear weapons by forgetting how to make them. We'll get rid of them by deciding we don't want them anymore."

Countries with Nuclear Capabilities vs Countries with
Nuclear Weapons (PC: Pandora's Promise)

Another great concern is that the encouragement of nuclear energy will result in higher nuclear proliferation. This doesn't appear to be the case, however. According to the CIA, 37 countries are capable of having nuclear weapons. Only 9 actually have nuclear weapons. “We won’t get rid of nuclear weapons by forgetting how to make them. US is currently buying warheads from the Russians (now about 16,000 warheads). These warheads aren't being used during wartime, but rather being recycled for energy. So nuclear power has begun to deweaponize the world. 

“The very things made to blow up our cities are being used to power our cities.”

I personally am still skeptical about how safe nuclear radiation is. The idea that we're more affected by background radiation than by nuclear power plants is a bit of a surprise. It remains a possibility that the casualties from all of the aforementioned nuclear disasters have been covered up by governments and nuclear companies. Perhaps it is the voice in my head that has been told to think of nuclear power as dangerous. It's difficult to separate the two concepts of nuclear power and nuclear weapons. 

Regarding the overall benefits of nuclear power, I think they far outweigh the potential cons. Nuclear power is a clean source of energy that is also renewable. Looking at the Integral Fast Reactor (IFR), I understand how fuel can be recycled to continue generating nuclear power. This new reactor has passed various tests on safety, and can shut itself down. The waste is also comparably insignificant to the waste generated by coal, oil, and other fossil fuels. The amount of nuclear fuel spent in the entire US could fit in a football field if stacked to a height of about three meters. Overall, I'm excited to see what the future looks like in terms of nuclear power as an energy source and how public perception shifts over time.

Climate Change at Proctor

Nick Ho
APES E Block
02/21/16
Information from Environment Textbook, Class Notes, Internet Research, Interviews on Campus

Evidence of climate change through
melted icecaps (PC: Google Images)

We are currently studying the causes and effects of climate change in our APES class. Evidence of climate change, which is defined as an "array of changes in aspects of Earth's climate," can be found everywhere. These changes include temperature, precipitation, and storm frequency/intensity. Our class was tasked with finding evidence either supporting or disputing climate change on Proctor's campus.

Firstly, how does climate change take place? Factors that affect the rate at which the Sun's energy is received and lost are what affect the process of climate change. These factors can be natural or be direct impacts of humans. For example, an increase in the production of greenhouse gasses (like Carbon Dioxide, Methane and Chlorofluorocarbons) would result in the warming of the earth's atmosphere. This key aspect of climate change is known as global warming, which is an increase in the Earth's average temperature.

My two sources of evidence are photographs of Carr Field and around Carr House and statistics from www.accuweather.com. In taking my pictures around campus, I noticed quite a few puddles and slippery icy patches, especially relative to February of last year, during which the ground was consistently covered with snow. This shows that the temperature in Andover is rising, and that snow is melting.

Melting snow outside of Carr
(PC: Nick Ho)

Ice/Water Pool outside of Mike Henriques' House
(PC: Nick Ho)

Snow/Water off of Carr Field (PC: Nick Ho)

Evidence of Climate Change on Carr Field (PC: Nick Ho)

 In addition to this photographic evidence of climate change, I also found evidence by looking at the
temperature from one year ago relative to the temperature today. I found that the daily temperatures  in February 2015 were simply much lower than the temperatures of this month. The highest temperature in Feb 2015 was 37F, whereas the predicted high of this month is 47F. The lowest temperatures in Andover a year ago were around 1F, whereas this year our coldest day of the month was 12F. This trend shows that this year's  February is significantly warmer than last year. Of course, the difference between the winter of one year and the winter of the following year cannot be classified as a trend. Still, these statistics point to the conclusion that climate change is real and is constantly happening.

Temperatures from February 2015 (Credits: http://www.accuweather.com/en/us/andover-mn/)

Temperatures from February 2016 (Credits: http://www.accuweather.com/en/us/andover-mn/)

Today we see climate change everywhere: not only in our local community of Proctor but also in the world. The warming of our planet, the rise in sea-levels, and the decrease in arctic ice are all examples of global evidence of this phenomenon. Scientists are working to predict the magnitude of this change. Average global temperatures are predicted to increase by 0.5F to 8.6F by the end of the century. Precipitation levels are expected to increase, though in different proportions depending on region. The United States itself is expected to warm by up to 12F by 2100. (http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/science/future.html) For me, it's a little bit frightening to know that this change is happening so rapidly.  A world 12F warmer could potentially be the world that my children and grandchildren grow up in. While the issues have manifested themselves in life on campus, the problem is much larger than just affecting a boarding school in New Hampshire. I was aware of climate change as an issue before writing this photo blog, simply by virtue of the fact that I live through its effects everyday: walking through puddles on my way to class or having trips to Ragged mountain canceled due to lack of snow. However, this only means that I am now more conscious of this rapidly growing issue, and makes me curious about the ways we as a community can begin to contribute to a solution.

Chasing the Inversion (and Other Atmospheric Phenomenon)

Nick Ho
APES E Block
02/14/16
Information from Environment Textbook, Class Notes, and Internet Research

Our APES class is currently studying atmospheric science, air quality, and pollution control. One key concept of this unit is thermal inversion, or temperature inversion. This term describes a process where cool air forms beneath a layer of warm air. The cool air (being denser than the warm air) resists vertical mixing and remains stable. This is unlike normal conditions, where the cool air rises and warm air sinks, creating vertical mixing.

Visual of normal atmospheric conditions
(Courtesy of Environment textbook)

The presence of vertical mixing allows pollutants to be carried upward and diluted. This means that pollution is less dense, and thus the conditions are less harmful. However, in thermal inversion, pollutants are prevented from being dispersed.

Visual of thermal inversion
(Courtesy of Environment textbook)

London during "Great Smog of '52"
(Photo Credits: Wikipedia)

What does this mean for the human race, or, more specifically, big cities and metropolitan areas? Pollutants like smog are trapped in a much more condensed area. For example, London was hit with the most devastating case of thermal inversion in history back in 1952. The event, known as the "Great Smog of '52", was triggered by simple weather conditions (a period of cold weather combined with anticyclone and windless conditions). The pollutants, created from factories and coal-burning stoves, were trapped in a small area, and scientists estimate fatalities were as high as 12,000 people.

The smog that affected London is known as industrial smog, or gray smog. Unlike photochemical (or brown) smog, industrial smog is produced when industries burn coal or oil. The results include carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, ammonium sulfate, and more. These chemicals pose risks to humans, even in small doses. For example, carbon monoxide (CO) binds to hemoglobin, preventing oxygen transport in the blood.

Smog settling over Los Angeles
(Photo Credits: Google Images)

Today, a great deal of legislation has been passed in order to better monitor pollution in the country. The Clean Air Act of  1963 funded research and encouraged emissions standards. The Clean Air Act of 1970 set standards for emissions and provided funding for pollution-control research. Most recently, the Clean Air Act of 1990 strengthened regulations for auto emissions, toxic air pollutants, acidic deposition and stratospheric ozone depletion. Additionally, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has set standards for emissions and concentrations of toxic pollutants.

Environmental Protection Agency Logo
(Photo Credits: Google Images)

Learning about thermal inversion is rather eye opening for me. I've always been aware that pollution is a growing issue, especially in highly populated areas and metropolitan cities. However, the learning about this idea is making me realize how important it is for humans to reduce pollution production. Thermal inversion can take place even without human influence. Take, for example, in the case of London's "Great Smog of '52" (where thermal inversion was brought on by purely natural occurrences). This makes it even more important that we as humans limit pollution, so when it does occur, the effects are not as devastating.

Andover Transfer Station

Nick Ho
APES E Block
02/07/16
Field Trip to Andover Transfer Station (with APES E Block)

Logan standing next to the compactor
(Photo Credits: Nick Ho)

Our APES block took a trip to Andover Transfer Station this weekend where we learned about the role a transfer station plays and where the waste that we generate ends up. Transfer stations sort out and organize waste in order to figure out the next destination for each piece of trash. They play a few critical roles in the process of waste management: recovering discarded materials, finding ways to recycle them, and disposing of waste safely and effectively. Alan asked each of us to bring along a piece of trash to the Transfer Station. I brought an empty gum packet, which was non recyclable. When we arrived, I tossed it into a garbage compactor, along with several other pieces of non recyclable trash.

Debbie explaining the organizational process
(Photo Credits: Nick Ho)

We then went inside where the recyclables and recoverable items were organized. There we met Debbie, who has been working at the Transfer Station for over five years now. She explained that there was a unique system in charging people who brought their trash to the Transfer Station. For example, compact fluorescent bulbs cost 50 cents each to recycle, while air conditioners and refrigerators are $10. The Transfer Station also takes much bigger items, like trucks (which cost as much as $225 if full). Debbie provided us with a fairly comprehensive guide to what can be recycled and what must be incinerated. Things like cardboard boxes, various paper based products, plastic containers #1-7 are examples of recyclables, while food stuffs and foam packaging are non recyclable and must be taken to the compactor. Debbie also explained how frustrating it was when people brought items like fluorescent lamps, because it meant she would have to disassemble them to figure out which components were reusable and which were not.

Some of the recyclable items at the station
(Photo Credits: Nick Ho)

All the waste products need to end up somewhere. The journey of each piece of garbage is unique. For example, paints are brought to Franklin and Bristol twice a year, appliances are sent off to Concord, and electronics are shipped off to Rochester.

More recyclable and renewable items
(Photo Credits: Nick Ho)

After meeting Debbie, we went outside again and saw where items like tires and various metal scraps were compiled. Tires, which cost $2 each to bring to the Transfer Station, can't be incinerated with all the other non-recyclables because they contain lead, which is poisonous and would be released into the air if it was burnt. That being said, tires are not useless after serving their primary function. They can be reused as playground material, building material, erosion control, and fuel. There are also special plants where tires can be taken to be incinerated. 

Truck where all the tires were compiled
(Photo Credits: Nick Ho)

Our trip to the Transfer Station was enlightening and educational. I learned that there is more to the waste management process than simply having two big piles for recyclables and non recyclables. It was also a bit jarring to see the sheer amount of waste produced by a small town like Andover, whose citizens are already more environmentally conscious than many other places. Only six hundred to seven hundred people are bringing their waste to the station per week. What does this mean for the waste production of big cities like Hong Kong with populations of over seven million? The visit made me realize that humans need to minimize the amount of material in the waste stream, the easiest way being source reduction: limiting the amount we produce and create. The visit also left me with some questions about the Transfer Station. For example, is the incineration process waste-to-energy (meaning that the heat produced through incineration is then harnessed as energy)? Is the entire process profitable, or does the station only charge what's necessary to keep the station running? I hope to learn more about transfer stations in the near future.