American And Indian Culture Essays - Cleveland Indians,

American And Indian Culture There are a lot of differences between American and Indian culture and values. As we know today, the American culture is a mixture of different cultures. India, on the other hand, has its own culture and values. I would like to introduce the culture and value differences between these two countries. Americans believe that they can really control their future. They are more specific to plan things. Indian people, however, believe that everything goes by God's will. They make short term plans. However, Americans always like to plan things ahead. They think they can/should control and dominate nature and the world around them. Americans are more goal-oriented, where as Indian people are more people oriented. They make their goals around people of the family. They even change their goals sometimes if they do not suit the needs of their family or family members. On the other hand, Americans are always ready to do anything to get the job done or achieve their goal. One major difference between the two cultures is family values. American people tend to have a series of short-term relationships, and many do not commit with one person for a long time. Indians, however, believe in long term relationships. They are more family-oriented and respect human relationships. They care for their family and are always ready to do anything for them. Extended families are traditional in India, while nuclear families are prevalent in the U.S. Change is a good value and indicative of improvement and growth. Americans thinking about change is very positive. They like mobility, migration, movement and change in their life style. Indian culture, on the other hand, looks upon change as negative. They like stability. They work hard to maintain their status quo. Americans place great emphasis on time and its value. They believe "time is money," and try to make every day productive. They do not like to waste time. They always like to do their work on time. Unfortunately, Indians are careless about the value of time. Time does not mean much and carries little importance for them. Indians are more formal than American people. Americans believe to formal is to be stuffy and arrogant and affected. This casual egalitarian attitude is meant to make everybody (foreigners) feel at home and welcome. American people are more practical but Indians are more efficient. Americans believe in more action and fewer words. Every decision is to be based on practicality, not upon aesthetics, or on consensus so everybody is made to feel good. Indians are known for their hard work, vitality and dynamism. There is an old saying "Dab ke wah te Raj ke kha" (work hard and eat to your satisfaction) that is very appropriate for Indians. Due to their hard work, Indians are very successful in other countries; they work as teachers, doctors, engineers, drivers, shopkeepers and run restaurateurs. They are less rigid. They have learned to assimilate the new culture pattern. Where as, the core of western culture is individual. They may be less hard working than Indians, but they have more resources. As you can see, here are many differences between the American and Indian cultures. Americans are independent and relaxed, while Indians tend to be extremely family-oriented and hard working. Americans enjoy mobility and change, while Indians seek stability. Even though each culture has both negative and positive aspects, both would benefit greatly from learning about one another. Americans like privacy and are very independent. They believe the individual is paramount. Americans do not like to work in groups, but Indian people are collectivist people. They always enjoy working as members of a group. Americans tend to think about themselves and place their needs above all else. American teenagers, for example, do not always consider consequences before they act. They just care about having fun. Indian teens have to think of many things before they make any decision. They must consider the effect their action will have on their family, and how society will react. Family reputation is very important to them, and they must be careful not to do anything to put down the family name. Family values are much more important for them. Family comes first and individuals own identity is second. Americans take pride in their own accomplishment, not in name. They believe that a person should be self-reliant and not be dependent on others. On the other hand, Indians are very dependent on others. Children are not brought to be independent. They are taught form very young age that there are others

A Biography of King John of England

A Biography of King John of England King John was King of England from 1199 to 1216. He lost many of his family’s Angevin lands on the continent and was forced to concede numerous rights to his barons in the Magna Carta, which has led to John being considered a colossal failure. In later years many poor reputations have been rolled back by modern supporters, and while Johns financial management is now being reassessed, the anniversary of the Magna Carta saw almost every popular commentator criticize John for - at best - terrible leadership and at worst terrible oppression. While historians are more positive, this is not getting through. His missing gold appears in the national English newspapers every few years but is never found. Youth and Struggle for the Crown King John was the youngest son of King Henry II of England and Eleanor of Aquitaine to survive childhood, being born in 1166. It appears that John was the favored son of Henry, and so the king tried to find him large lands to live from. One grant of several castles, given when John was first to be married (to an Italian heiress), provoked anger among his brothers and started a war between them. Henry II won, but John was given only a little land in the resulting settlement. John was betrothed in 1176 to Isabella, heir to the rich earldom of Gloucester. When John’s older brother Richard became heir to his fathers throne, Henry II wanted to promote Richard to inheriting England, Normandy, and Anjou, and give John Richard’s current holding of Aquitaine, but Richard refused to concede even this, and another round of family warfare followed. Henry turned down the Kingdom of Jerusalem for both himself and John (who begged to accept it), and then John was lined up for the command of Ireland. He visited but proved to be seriously indiscrete, developing a careless reputation and returning home a failure. When Richard rebelled again – Henry II was at the time refusing to recognize Richard as his heir – John supported him. The conflict broke Henry, and he died. When Richard became King Richard I of England in July 1189, John was made Count of Mortain, plus given other lands and a large income, as well as staying as Lord of Ireland and finally marrying Isabella. In return, John promised to stay out of England when Richard went on crusade, although their mother persuaded Richard to drop this clause. Richard then went, establishing a martial reputation that saw him considered a hero for generations; John, who stayed home, would end up achieving the precise opposite. Here, as with the Jerusalem episode, Johns life could have ended up very different. The man who Richard left in charge of England soon grew unpopular, and John set up what was almost a rival government. As war loomed between John and the official administration, Richard sent a new man back from the crusade to take charge and sort things out. John’s hopes of immediate control were dashed, but he still schemed for the throne, sometimes in conjunction with the King of France, who was continuing a long tradition of interference in their rival. When Richard was captured returning from the crusade, John signed a deal with the French and made a move for the crown of England itself, but failed. However, John was prepared to surrender notable parts of his brother’s lands to the French in return for their recognition, and this became known. Consequently, when Richard’s ransom was paid, and he returned in 1194, John was exiled and stripped of all possessions. Richard relented some in 1195, returning some lands, and totally in 1196 when John became the heir to the English throne. John as King In 1199 Richard died - while on a campaign, killed by a (un)lucky shot, before he could ruin his reputation - and John claimed the throne of England. He was accepted by Normandy, and his mother secured Aquitaine, but his claim to the rest was in trouble. He had to fight and negotiate, and he was challenged by his nephew Arthur. In concluding peace, Arthur kept Brittany (held from John), while John held his lands from the King of France, who was recognized as John’s overlord on the continent, in a manner greater than was ever forced out of John’s father. This would have a crucial impact later in the reign. However, historians who have cast a careful eye over John’s early reign have identified a crisis had already begun: many nobles distrusted John because of his previous actions and doubted whether he would treat them correctly. The marriage to Isabella of Gloucester was dissolved because of alleged consanguinity, and John looked for a new bride. He found one in the form of another Isabella, heiress to Angoulà ªme, and he married her as he tried to involve himself in the machinations of the Angoulà ªme and Lusignan family. Unfortunately, Isabella had been engaged to Hugh IX de Lusignan, and the result was a rebellion by Hugh and the involvement of French King Philip II. Had Hugh married Isabella, he would have commanded a powerful region and threatened John’s power in Aquitaine, so the break benefitted John. But, while marrying Isabella was a provocation to Hugh, John continued to snub and anger the man, pushing his rebellion. In his position as French King, Philip ordered John to his court (as he could any other noble who held lands from him), but John refused. Philip then revoked John’s lands, and a war began, but this was more a move to strengthen the French crown than any vote of faith in Hugh. John began by capturing a mass of the leading rebels who were sieging his mother but threw the advantage away. However, one of the prisoners, his nephew Arthur of Brittany, mysteriously died, leading most to conclude murder by John. By 1204 the French had taken Normandy - John’s barons undermined his war plans in 1205 – and by the start of 1206 they’d taken Anjou, Maine and chunks of Poitou as nobles deserted John all over the place. John was in danger of losing all the lands his predecessors had gained on the continent, although he managed small gains during 1206 to stabilize things. After being forced both to reside in England more permanently and to produce more money from his kingdom for war, John proceeded to develop and strengthen the royal administration. On the one hand, this provided the crown with more resources and strengthened royal power, on the other it upset nobles and made John, already a military failure, even more unpopular. John toured extensively within England, hearing many court cases in person: he had a great personal interest in, and a great ability for, the administration of his kingdom, although the goal was always more money for the crown. When the see of Canterbury became available in 1206, John’s nomination – John de Gray - was canceled by Pope Innocent III, who secured Stephen Langton for the position. John objected, citing traditional English rights, but in the following argument, Innocent excommunicated John. The latter now started draining the church of funds, raising a large sum he partly spent on a new navy – John has been called the founder of the English navy - before conceding that the pope would be a useful ally against the French and coming to an agreement in 1212. John then handed his kingdom over to the Pope, who bestowed it on John as a vassal for a thousand marks a year. While this might seem curious, it was really a cunning way to get Papal support against both France, and against the rebel barons of 1215. By the end of 1214, John had succeeded in mending his bridges with the top of the church, but his actions had alienated many further down and his lords. It also angered the mona stic chroniclers and writers historians have to use and may be one reason why so many of the modern histories have been so critical of King John, while the modern historians are increasingly peeling criticism away. Well, not all of them. Rebellion and Magna Carta While many lords of England had grown discontented with John, only a few had rebelled against him, despite widespread baronial discontent stretching back to before John took the throne. However, in 1214 John returned to France with an army and failed to do any damage except gain a truce, having once more been let down by vacillating barons and the failures of allies. When he returned a minority of barons took the chance to rebel and demand a charter of rights, and when they were able to take London in 1215, John was forced into negotiations as he looked for a solution. These talks took place at Runnymede, and on June 15, 1215, an agreement was made on the Articles of the Barons. Later known as Magna Carta, this became one of the pivotal documents in English, and to some extents western, history. In the short term, Magna Carta lasted just three months before the war between John and the rebels continued. Innocent III supported John, who struck back hard at the baron’s lands, but he rejected a chance to attack London and instead wasted the north. This allowed time for the rebels to appeal to Prince Louis of France, for him to gather an army, and for a successful landing to take place. As John retreated north again rather than fight Louis, he may have lost a portion of his treasury and definitely fell ill and died. This proved a blessing for England as the regency of John’s son Henry were able to reissue Magna Carta, thus splitting the rebels into two camps, and Louis was soon ejected. Legacy Until the revisionism of the twentieth century, John was rarely well regarded by writers and historians. He lost wars and land and is seen as the loser by giving the Magna Carta. But John had a keen, incisive mind, which he applied well to government. Unfortunately, this was negated by an insecurity about people who could challenge him, by his attempts to control barons through fear and debt rather than conciliation, through his lack of magnanimity and insults. It is difficult to be positive about a man who lost generations of royal expansion, which will always be clearly chartable. Maps can make for grim reading. But theres little that merits calling King John evil, as a British newspaper did.

Here's a Wise investment Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Here's a Wise investment - Essay Example Many experts added that they would go out of their way to help such needy students, as they add to the campuses and are very rare. College days are exciting in August and September when students sign up for courses. The trouble comes in spring, at the end of 1st or 2nd year when their scholarships expire. Parents can’t afford to pay tuition bills. Some say that parents didn’t save enough, some say they chose expensive four-year schools when community colleges were just as good, while others say that they didn’t do enough of research. The real problem is people don’t know how to go about scholarships, loans, grants, etc. And that readily available money is left untouched. Mathews also states that several illegal immigrants work their way out through college. There are students who deny themselves little luxuries such as movies and restaurant meals so that they can save for their education. Unfortunately, research shows that they earn less and are more likel y to drop out. Today, getting into a college and earning a degree is a monetary issue. Several students with a will to study don’t have a way to pay for it. So to help them, we have to invest more money in those students. But, where will all those funds come from? How could we help the young people to complete college, the ones who are going to be paying for our Social Security and Medicare. Well, there are many possible ways in which we could help the young students to complete their education. The first and foremost is to educate them about the following means of availability of funds. Scholarships are the chief form of monetary aid available to students who

Professional Knowledge and Abilities Paper Essay

Professional Knowledge and Abilities Paper - Essay Example Freidson (1986) found that when an individual knows every thing related to his professional field, only then he is able to achieve the desired goals and objectives from his professional field. There are many factors that contribute to success of an individual and professional knowledge holds the top most importance in that companies and organizations hire only those individuals who are well equipped with technical and organizational skills and capabilities accompanied with certified knowledge base. According to Althoff (2005), professional knowledge not only improves an individual’s professional performance but also helps the individual in making a significant progress in his career. It enables him to add to the company’s reputation. The individual becomes confident enough to tackle with all sorts of organizational conflicts and problems. He is able to communicate with the authorities and negotiate with them. This increases his chances of promotion. Professional knowled ge helps both; employees and the organization (Karagiannis & Reimer, 2002). It helps employees in a sense of career success. And any organization’s success also depends upon employees’ professional knowledge and abilities because they help the organization in establishing a set of core competencies that is essential for distinguishing one organization from the other. My Organization While talking about professional knowledge and abilities, let’s now discuss an association related to the field of information technology which really helped me in increasing my professional knowledge and abilities. The association which we are talking about is MSDN, Microsoft Development Network. MSDN is the organization which not only helped me in increasing my professional knowledge and abilities but also helped me in my career progress. MSDN is a set of those online and offline services, which is designed in such a way that it helps the developers in writing various applications using Microsoft products. Microsoft Development Network provides various training sessions to the information technology professionals. It acts as a part of Microsoft whose purpose is to manage the relationships between various developers and the Microsoft. While developing any application related to Microsoft, MSDN is the key player which plays a vital role in establishing and maintaining relationship between the developers of the applications and Microsoft. I obtained a huge amount of professional knowledge through interacting with many highly qualified programming professionals. I attended many training sessions to improve my professional knowledge and to learn how to survive in a particular organizational culture. It is because of this organization that I am now able to deal with all types of application developers effectively. My abilities have really grown significantly regarding my professional field. When I came to the organization, initially I felt a bit distressed because my knowledge regarding Microsoft and its related products was not very huge. I had little experience and I did not feel confident enough working in teams. I thought I would never be comfortable with supervisors. But as the days passed by, I became more and more efficient not only in computer applications but also in dealing with the developers. All credit goes to the professional know

A comparison of CORBA and Web Services Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 4000 words

A comparison of CORBA and Web Services - Essay Example Distributed Applications refer to the applications which can be distributed across different processors and computer systems.This concept helps in deploying an application across systems on a network which might be working a common project or an application. Distribution introduces a whole new set of semantics for ease of computing; some applications by their very nature are distributed across multiple computers because of one or more of the following reasons (Chaffee & martin, 1999):There are some applications which might need to access common data. Therefore, the data which these applications must access must necessarily be residing on multiple systems for administration and ownership reasons. There are several options available with distributed applications like an owner could permit the accessibility of the data-the data might be permitted to be accessed remotely but not stored on the local systems. If the data cannot be co-located, it must necessarily exist on multiple heterogen eous systems. Many applications in particular make the use of multiple processors in parallel computing to run an application and to solve a problem. Other applications may execute on multiple computers in order to take advantage of some unique feature of a particular system. Distributed applications most definitely take advantage of the scalability and heterogeneity of the distributed system (Chaffee & Martin, 1999). Some applications execute on multiple computers because users of the application communicate and interact with each other via the application. Each user executes a piece of the distributed application on his or her computer, and shared objects, typically execute on one or more servers. A typical architecture for this kind of application is illustrated below. Fig 1: Distributed Applications (Chaffee & Martin, 1999) It is necessary for the Distributed application developers to address several issues in a local program where in one operating system process all logic is executed. There are some differences between the objects that are co-located in the same process and the objects that can interact across processes or machine boundaries. The objects that are co-located can communicate faster than the ones that run on distributed applications. When in a group of objects which are co-located, one object fails, the whole of the object group fails. However, in the distributed applications, if one object among the whole bunch of objects running fails, it will not affect the other objects. Also the networks can be partitioned so as to separate the objects into different domains. Concurrent access in co-located objects is possible only through multiple threads. Concurrent access among the objects is possible in objects running in the distributed applications. Co-located objects are totally secure which i s evident through the fact that objects have access only among themselves and any other outer objects cannot access that group of objects. Objects in a distributed application environment are not secure since objects in such an environment are not protected against access from other processes. The communication speeds between the objects belonging to the same process are much higher when compared to the communication speeds between objects located on different machines. This statement implies that distributed applications which most probably might contain more than two objects having tight interactions should not be designed. If such applications are designed, the objects should be co-located to enhance the performance and the communication speeds. When two objects are co-located, they fail together; if the process in which they execute fails, both objects fail. The

Comparing Nuclear Energy To Other Energies Sources Environmental Sciences Essay

Comparing Nuclear Energy To Other Energies Sources Environmental Sciences Essay This report contains information on five different types of energy sources. It is a literature study that compares two renewable (solar and wind) sources and two non-renewable (coal and natural gas) sources to nuclear energy. The comparison is based on factors such as usage, cost (both capital costs and running costs), safety and stability, storage of waste and the impact on the environment. The sources are individually compared to nuclear energy. In the comparisons only the factors relevant to the two energy sources being compared at any given time are considered factors are not repeated in the comparison. It also looks at whether the medias portrayal of the dangers of nuclear energy is accurate or whether it overestimates the dangers involved in producing nuclear power. The aim of the report was to determine the viability of nuclear energy as a source of power to support electricity needs of the population in the future. This is a literature study addressing the portrayal of nuclear energy by the media and its viability as an energy source in comparison to other methods of generating electricity. The report compares Nuclear energy to energy generated by coal, natural gases, wind and the sun (i.e. solar energy). The energy types are individually compared to Nuclear energy. Each section highlights specific problems and advantages associated with Nuclear energy as it relates to the energy to which it is being compared. Factors taken into consideration include the costs involved with the various types of energy, how much it is being used globally, impact on the environment, storage of waste, safety and stability. The report was written to meet the requirements laid down by JSQ216, a second year engineering subject at the University of Pretoria. The report was completed by allocating each of the four group members a specific energy to research and compare to nuclear energy. The research was then completed by using journal articles, books, internet sites and approaching two engineers about the problem. The information was processed, the reliability of the sources assessed and a short portion of the report was generated by each group member. All four parts were then put together for the final report. Figure 1: Break down of solar energy[2]The sun has been around since the beginning of time but only recently has it been used as a source of renewable energy. Approximately 120000 TW of solar energy is absorbed by the Earths surface which is equal to 10000 times the total global demand for energy. Only 0.1% of this energy would be required to satisfy the worlds present consumption of fuels.[1] There are three main ways to harness the suns energy. These include solar cells which convert sunlight directly into electricity. Solar water heating where heat from the sun is used to heat water inside panels on roof tops. And lastly solar furnaces that make use of mirrors to concentrate the suns energy into a small space to produce high temperatures. As illustrated by figure 1. There are close to 440 nuclear power plants in the world today which supply 16% of the worlds energy demand, however only 1% is useable energy with the rest being nuclear waste. If 1% of the area where there is recoverable energy utilised solar energy devices all the worlds energy needs could be met with solar energy alone. If 10% of the area were to be utilised then in two years the electricity produced would be equal to all known reserves of fossil fuels.[1] Cost problems with solar energy are the high capital costs involved in the installation of solar panels which can be very expensive. The need to store energy because of solar availability due to factors such as time of day and weather conditions is also costly. Countries at higher altitudes with daily cloud cover will have an economic disadvantage due to long distance transfer of energy. Maintenance of panels also has to be considered. Nuclear energy is presently cheaper than solar power however the construction of the facilities and the disposal of radioactive waste is costly and can affect the environment.[3] Solar power is relatively safe to use as long as you do not look directly into the suns rays or come into contact with hot solar panels. In the case of nuclear power it is also safe to use as the nuclear reactors are equipped with redundant systems to make sure there is no nuclear meltdown. This makes it a very stable energy source. Nuclear energy starts to get more dangerous in the form of spent fuel rods and radioactive waste. Even though nuclear energy is reliable and stable as a whole, when something does go wrong it can become very serious and very dangerous. Solar energy does not have any form of waste as replaced panels and components can be reused or recycled. Nuclear energy has two types of waste products, the spent fuel rods which if not stored properly in pools of water to cool down could become very unstable. The other form is radioactive gasses and other waste products that if released into the atmosphere can pose various risks. Solar energy produces no waste or pollution. Waste from nuclear power must be sealed and stored underground for long periods of time. This waste must be kept safe from external factors and from human contact in order to prevent a threat. Such a threat is currently under way at the Fukushima Daiichi power plant in Japan where a pool of spent fuel rods caught fire this year. Solar power is a renewable power source therefore it is environmentally friendly. It is silent and requires no fuel therefore there is no pollution. It even decreases the amount of harmful green house gasses. Although there are many advantages to solar energy there is still the fact that a large amount of panels is required to produce the needed electricity. This becomes very costly. It is reliable and has no risks that are associated with nuclear energy. Nuclear energy on the other hand is not a renewable source and if not handled in the correct way could impact the environment in a negative way. Even though it does not contribute to global warming like other fossil fuels, the waste gasses it does produce could potentially cause radioactive sicknesses and cancer in humans and other life forms. A summary of the advantages and disadvantages of solar and nuclear energy can be found in the tables below Table 1: Advantages of Solar and Nuclear Energy Solar Energy Nuclear Energy Renewable energy source Does not emit green house gasses Has no volatile waste Plenty of resources available Once panels are in place the energy is free Cheaper than solar power Table 2: Disadvantages of Solar and Nuclear Energy Solar Energy Nuclear Energy Does not work at night Radioactive waste Currently very expensive Long-term storage required for waste products Requires big fields in order to harvest a suitable amount of energy Some reactors produce plutonium which can be used to make nuclear weapons All around the world we require every energy source that we can get including nuclear. All energy sources have both pros and cons. Even though nuclear energy is portrayed as an unstable source of energy it is in fact one of the most reliable and stable types in the world today. The downside is in its waste that if treated incorrectly could land in the hands of terrorists. In the next 20 years there will be emerging economies throughout the globe that will require low cost, environmentally friendly alternative energy sources and Nuclear power is expected to satisfy this demand. Wind Energy Wind power is the generation of electricity through the use of wind to spin turbines, which in turn, convert the winds kinetic energy into electricity. [1] The process of using wind as a power source has been in use throughout history from around the 12th century where windmills were used to mill grain. [2] Wind power generation uses wind turbines to make electricity, wind mills for mechanical power and wind pumps for pumping water. [2] It is a renewable energy source that not many countries have attempted to develop. Wind Power Worldwide June 2010 [3] Country Capacity (MW) USA 36.3 China 33.8 Germany 26.4 Spain 19.5 India 12.1 Rest of the World 46.9 Total 175.00Table 3: Wind Power Worldwide June 2010 In June 2010, The World Wind Energy Association (WWEA) published that 5 countries alone accounted for approximately 73% of the worlds total wind energy production namely USA, China, Germany, Spain and India. [3] Figure 2: World Electricity Production 2008 On the other hand, nuclear energy production seems to be far more popular in a lot of countries with some countries such as the USA and France having no less than 104 and 59 nuclear reactors in operation respectively [4] in early 2010. A study done in 2008 to find the percentage of each type of energy that is globally produced showed that wind forms part of only 2.8% whereas nuclear energy accounts for 13.4% of the worlds total power. The main disadvantage of wind power is the unreliability of the wind itself. In most areas the winds strength is too low to spin a turbine. However, if wind energy were to be used in unison with solar and/or geothermal energy it could be developed into a stable and reliable source of power. The wind turbines themselves are quite safe with only a few reported cases worldwide of damaged blades caused by bad weather, none of which has resulted in any known injuries. [5] Nuclear reactor plants make use of radioactive materials to generate electricity. The idea that these materials could become unstable and get out of control is one of the main concerns (along with radiation poisoning) for countries producing nuclear energy. The Chernobyl nuclear disaster of 1986 lead to better, more efficient protocols being put into practice leaving most countries to believe that they are now better prepared to handle any destabilizing of the nuclear materials. [6] Nonetheless, wind energy remains theoretically a lot safer than nuclear plants even with all the safety precautions they take. The consequences are much higher for a nuclear disaster than for a wind turbine failure. Wind turbines do not emit any waste products as they do not burn any sort of fossil fuels or radioactive materials, so there is no concern over where to store or dispose of emissions safely- unlike nuclear energy. The radioactive materials (like Uranium and Plutonium) that are used up in nuclear power plants continue to produce dangerous radiation for thousands of years after they have been used up as a fuel for nuclear energy. The most effective way to store these depleted materials has not yet been found but for now they are being kept in underground storage pools where they will not be harmful to anybody. [7] The initial setups of both wind turbines and nuclear power plants are quite costly. But once built, wind turbines are cheaper to maintain than the power plants, but they are both relatively cheaper to maintain than their fossil fuel counterparts with the nuclear materials lasting a very long time and with wind being a free resource to be used. Environmental Impact: Both wind and nuclear energy as it is being produced, is friendly to the surrounding environment (except in the tragic case where radiation is leaked from the power plant). However, wind turbines do make more noise than the power plants which is disruptive to any locals staying near the turbines. [8] The amount of space that a wind turbine takes is less than that of an average nuclear power plant and the disruption to the environment during construction is worse for the power plants because they take so much longer to be built. [8] Coal Energy Coal, the most abundant and affordable of the fossil fuels (1), is a non-renewable energy source. It has been used as a source of energy for thousands of years and has numerous important uses such as in electricity generation, steel and cement manufacture, and industrial process heating. Coal often proves to be the only alternative when low-cost, cleaner energy sources are unable to meet the growing energy demand faced with today (1). Fossil fuels are formed from the organic remains of prehistoric plants and animals that have undergone changes due to heat and pressure over millions of years. The process is still taking place today but the rate of energy storage is small. The annual biomass production stored this way represents only around 0.001% of the current world energy use (2). Even though charcoal can be made artificially, it is not possible to produce it at the rate of consumption (3). Therefore, coal is regarded as a non-renewable energy source and is bound to get depleted. According to BPs (British Petroleum) Statistical Review of World Energy 2010, there is a estimated 826001 million tons of proven coal reserves worldwide, or 119 years reserves-to-production ratio(length of time that the remaining coal reserves would last if production were to continue at the previous years rate )(4). However, compared to other fossil fuels, coal reserves are the largest ones and are more evenly distributed worldwide. Nuclear energy is also a non-renewable source as it is reliant upon a finite source of fuel that can be exhausted. Although, the worlds known uranium resources increased by 15% in two years to 2007 owing to increased mineral exploration The uranium (and sometimes plutonium) used in nuclear power is a natural resource and is a common metal found in rocks all over the world. The World Nuclear Association suggested that there is approximately (13) 160 years of supply at todays rate of consumption. Coal is mainly used as a solid fuel to produce electricity and heat. The coal is usually pulverized and then combusted in a furnace with a boiler for the generation of electricity. The steam which results from the combustion is then used to spin turbines, which drives the generators thus creating electricity. When coal is heated at approximately 1000 degrees Celsius in an airless environment, Coke is produced. The Coke is then used is used to smelt iron ore for the production of steel. A by-product of this heating is Coal gas, which is a composition of methane and hydrogen, is produced. Coal gas was used for residential lighting and cooking in the 1940s; but it was very costly and so it was stopped. However, in recent times, these gasification processes are being developed to be more cost effective and so coal gas is often used as fuel for engines. Nuclear power plants create electricity through a process called fission in which subatomic particles called neutrons split uranium atoms, producing tremendous amounts of energy. The result of the fission of these large atoms is the creation of smaller atoms and radiation. The energy produced is then absorbed by water which heats it and so stream is produced. The steam is then used to spin turbines as in the case with coal power plants. According to the Key World Energy Statistics 2010 (5), 27% of the worldwide energy demand was fulfilled by coal in 2009.Coal was the second largest source of energy followed by Oil supplying 33.2%. China is a major producer with coal with coal always playing a dominant role in its primary energy consumption. China consumed a high 46,9% of the coal supplied and produced the most coal (45,6%) according to the BP Statistical World Energy Review 2010. World primary energy demand is expected to continue to grow steadily, as it has over the last two decades According to the International Energy Outlook 2010 (an assessment by the Energy Information Administration (EIA) of the outlook for international energy markets through 2035), world consumption of coal increases by 56% over the next two decades(6). Nuclear energy supplies the world 5.8% of the worlds consumption which is less than a quarter of what coal supplies. This is expected as there are only 442 operable nuclear power stations world-wide, the first one being created about 50 years ago which is relatively recent. The extraction of coal involves two types of mining: surface (strip) mining and underground mining. Surface mining involves the removal of coal deposits close to earths surface whereas underground mining is removing deposits found hundreds of meters below the earths surface. Underground mining accounts to approximately 60% of the worlds coal production (7) and requires the creation of shafts and tunnels that are dug in to the coal layers. There have been numerous tragic occurrences in the history of coal mining as it is a very risky business and devastating accidents occur in all countries that produce commercial quantities of this mineral. Most mining accidents occur as a result of cave-ins, methane explosions, mine wall failures, vehicle collisions or the flooding of the mine shafts. Also suffocation, gas poisoning, respiratory ailments (mainly Black Lung Disease) were common. Over 100,000 miners have dies over the past century in coal-mining accidents in the U.S (2nd largest producers of coal) only (8). However, most of these risks have been reduced in present-day mines owing to modern technology and health and safety acts setting stricter standards. Nevertheless, in lesser developed countries and some developing countries, continue to experience significant numbers of mining fatalities each year. The abundance of coal makes it easily accessible and the use of cheaper modes of transportation makes this resource an inexpensive form of energy when compared to energies such as solar, wind or hydro. It is also slightly cheaper than the costs involved in producing nuclear energy. When comparing the economics in producing energy from these two sources, it is important to consider several different types costs associated with both coal and nuclear energy. This includes costs associated with the fuel used in the production of energy which tend to be lower in a nuclear plant even though more intricate steps are involved in the production of the fuel assemblies used in the reactors. Transportation costs are, however, high for coal because a significantly large amount of coal is needed to generate the same energy as with the nuclear fuel. The capital costs are the costs associated with the initial construction of the plant and the modifications forms an important part when comparing the costs. For a nuclear plant, these costs are usually higher than for any other energy forms as the buildings used for containment or the safety-related equipment need to meet higher standards than those met by traditional coal plants. On the other hand, coal plants are required to include scrubbers to remove airborne pollutants as a result of the burning of the coal. Another consideration is the operation and maintenance costs involved. These are the costs involved in the day-to-day operation of the coal and nuclear plants. This includes labour costs, material costs, government fees and property taxes. It is found that the costs are very similar in both the plants. The costs associated with the by-product waste should also be taken into account. For a coal plants, this is the coal ash and for a nuclear plant, these costs include a charge levied by the government for ultimate storage of the high level waste. This charge is a flat fee based on energy use. The waste costs for nuclear energy is considerably higher than the costs for coal plants. Thus, the costs involved in producing coal and nuclear energy are roughly the same (9). The burning of coal is known to contribute to global warming, and is linked to environmental and health issues such as acid rain, smog and asthma owing to the particulate emissions that are emitted from power stations. According to the World Health Organisation, it is estimated that air pollution kills more than 2 million people annually (10). Coal is the largest contributor to the human-made increase of CO2, a greenhouse gas which causes global warming and climate change in the air (11). Strip mining causes large areas of land to be temporarily disturbed and this causes soil erosion and impacts on local biodiversity as after the land has been scraped and quarried for coal, it is usually abandoned. The waste after coal has been combusted is often disposed of in landfills or surface impoundments, which are lined with compacted clay soil and a plastic sheet. As rain filters through the toxic ash pits over years, the toxic metals are leached out into the local environment. Coal sludge i s the liquid coal waste generated by washing coal and is known to contain toxins, and so leaks or spills can pollute underground and surface waters. (12) Natural Gas Energy The Natural Gas used in power production is a colourless, odourless and tasteless gas made primarily of methane and other hydrocarbons (including ethane, propane, butanes and pentanes). It also contains carbon dioxide, helium, hydrogen sulphide and nitrogen, in smaller quantities. Natural gas is a molecular compound with Van Der Waal attraction between its molecules[1]. It has a boiling point of -161oC and is stable at a wide variety of temperatures and pressures[1]. Natural gas is transported in its liquid form as it taken up 600 times less space as a liquid than it does as a gas and weighs 55% less than the same volume of water. It is a result of the decomposition of plants and animals and is found in pockets beneath the earth and ocean. Natural gas is an important source of power in the modern world. According to Makogen (2010:49) if we were to use 17 to 20% of the worlds natural gas resources, we would be able to provide the world with energy for 200 years. Although it currently only accounts for 20% of the worlds energy, the demand is expected to increase substantially over the next 20 years. It is a cleaner fuel source than any other fossil fuel[2] emitting nearly no sulphur dioxide and far less carbon dioxide and NHx than either oil or coal. Natural gases can also be used in conjunction with other power generation methods, such as biomass[3], to produce energy which will change the amount of pollutants emitted. Nuclear stations do not produce the same pollutants as fossil fuels do but waste management remains the primary concern in nuclear technology. The waste products of a nuclear station are isotopes with extremely long half-lives. The storage of these waste products means creating a safe storage space that needs to last longer than all the human civilisations combined. There are three different levels of nuclear waste, high level, medium level and low level. Low level waste is not very dangerous and disposing of it is not a problem. The danger comes in with high level radioactive waste. The waste is encased in concrete drums and buried up to a kilometre and a half into the ground[5]. However, high level radioactive waste cannot be stored near any other high level radioactive waste as it will interact with the other waste. It is also important to find stable ground in which to store the waste, as concrete can crack and break in the event of an earthquake or tremor. South Africa is one of the safer places to store nuclear waste as it has a geologically stable countryside. Some areas, like the northern Karoo, have experienced about 30 000 years of stability. In between the removal of the waste from use and the final storage of the waste it needs to be left to soak in water for a period of time, to get rid of some of the residual radiation. In this time the fuel rods need to be safely guarded as the waste products are used in the creation of dirty bombs and nuclear bombs. A dirty bomb is a normal bomb containing high level radioactive waste and is detonated above a city, allowing the radioactive particles to contaminate the water supply in addition to other damage. [5]Plutonium, one of the waste products of a nuclear power station, is a primary component in atom bombs and the rods often have to be processed to remove all plutonium before they can be disposed. The use to which the waste products can be used also means that measures need to be taken in ensuring that any country with a nuclear power station does not use the waste in a nuclear weapons program. It also leaves a country more vulnerable to nuclear attack as should a dirty or atom bomb land near a nuclear station the products of the two would react with each other, compounding damage. The waste from a nuclear station can be greatly reduced by the correct management of the station but it still remains a serious threat. Cold fusion could theoretically produce energy without radioactive waste but experiments with cold fusion have produced very little energy, not even enough to power a light bulb. Cold fusion is also regarded as a scam by many scientists and has the same notoriety as perpetual motion and free energy in many scientific circles[9]. The level of efficiency of natural gas as a power source is, however, very much dependent on the technology used to produce the power. In a comparison of different technologies[4] it was found that Natural Gas combined cycle technology was the most efficient of the Natural Gas technologies. The technologies were compared based on efficiency, capital costs, maintenance costs, the service life and electricity costs (calculated based on the cost of the fuel, the maintenance costs, capital cost and service life). The capital costs of the combined cycle technology were just over à ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚ ¬500 with an expected maintenance cost of less than à ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚ ¬0.005 per kilo Watt hour and a service life of 20 years (i.e. the time the plant operates before equipment needs to be replaced.) A nuclear station has to replace its one third of its fuel rods annually[5] Comparatively, a nuclear stations capital costs are higher than any other fuel source[6] but they produce electricity at a very low cost which offsets the initial high cost. This can be seen in figure 2, below, which shows a comparison of the cost to generate energy for various technologies. The cost of power from a nuclear plant also tends to remain stable[7] even if the cost of uranium varies as up top 75% of the fuel cost in a nuclear plant is to cover the start-up cost. On the other hand, natural gas prices are very dependent on the supply and so prices tend to vary. Natural gas is also subject to carbon taxes in some countries because of its emissions, which reduces its cost efficiency. Figure 3: Cost of Energy Generation for Different Technologies Location also plays a very important role in determining whether or not natural gas or nuclear energy is the most efficient solution of a country. A country that is abundant in fossil fuels and does not pay carbon taxes would find that natural gas was a far more suitable technology. However, when it becomes necessary to import natural gases, the supply security of the plant becomes compromised and it Nuclear may be a more financially viable option. Both Nuclear and Natural Gas sources have the advantages of being able to supply on demand. Most renewable energy resources are offered on an as-available basis[8]. This means that you do not need to run a coal station alongside a nuclear station in case it does not produce enough energy to meet demand. Conclusion Media is incorrect in portrayal, too extreme but still not safe Waste disposal is dangerous, careful consideration as to storage facilities Safety, security Vulnerability to nuclear attack

The Great Potato Famine :: Essays Papers

The Great Potato Famine The Great Potato Famine was a huge disaster that would change Ireland forever. The people in Ireland were extremely dependent on potatoes and when the blight came the economy went down. When the fungus attacked the potato crops slowly crop by crop throughout Ireland, people began to lose their main source of food. With the people in Ireland’s huge dependency on the potato, people began to starve or get sick from the potatoes. No one had any food to eat. The potatoes were black inside with molds through out it that came from the fungus from something in nature. The weather that brought the blight also was one of the causes because they could not control how the weather was bringing the fungus. Ireland was under the British government and did not help Ireland when they needed Britain. The aftermath of the Great Famine was not only a huge drop in population, but emigration, and much more. The potato famine killed many people. â€Å"The famine brought starvation and disease which claimed 1 million lives† (Jackson 69). The death toll from the Great Famine took a good portion of the Irish population and left a landmark as being one of the most costly disasters of modern times. â€Å"Additionally, over 50,000 people died of diseases: typhus, scurvy, dysentery [†¦] Within a decade, the population of Ireland plummeted from over eight million to less than six million† (Irish Potato). Either the people that died during the famine were forgotten about from the surviving relatives, or there were no remaining survivors in a household there for, no was there to report it (Mokyr and O Grada 343). Sadly, death was one only of the effects of the Great Potato Famine. Another thing that was an effect of the Great Famine was emigration. Many people moved to different countries, mostly America, to find new land and get away from the horrible famine. Soon the government passed the Poor Law Extension Act of 1847, which was approved to refuse any farmer help with over a quarter acre of land. This Act influenced emigration, increased land clearance, and the structure of rural society slowly decreased.