e-Portfolio 6

In my opinion, the most frequent grammatical error that is found in my article will be the usage of prepositions. Often, I use the wrong preposition repeatedly without noticing it. Proper usage of prepositions is difficult to explain with words most of the time, in fact, what I can do is just look at the meaning of the sentence to determine the accurate preposition.

For example, I have written the sentence

“…the price is not affordable by average people”. (wrong)

“…the price is not affordable for average people”. (correct)

If “by” is used in the sentence, it would mean the price is not affordable as a result of average people, which is not what I intended to convey. “For” is the correct one because what I wanted to say is that the price is not affordable, when average people are concerned.

Subject verb agreement is also another silly mistake I have made.

“…emissions that is contributed by the burning of fossil fuels”. (wrong)

“…emissions that are contributed by the burning of fossil fuels”. (correct)

The subject “emissions” is a plural noun, so a plural verb form “are” should be used instead of “is”.

Another example is

“Statistics shows that…”. (wrong)

“Statistics show that…”. (correct)

Again the subject “statistics” is a plural noun when it is used in this sentence, so the verb used must be “show”.

Lastly, the usage of articles is also another weakness found in my writing.

For instance,

“…the installation of adequate number of solar panels”. (wrong)

“…the installation of an adequate number of solar panels”. (correct)

In this case, the noun is "number" which is obviously a countable noun. Therefore, it cannot stand alone, so, an article “an” is needed.

Next example is

“…by a team from University of Victoria in Canada”. (wrong)

“…by a team from the University of Victoria in Canada”. (correct)

The phrase “University of Victoria” is a proper noun that requires an article “the” as it is referring to a specific place.

e-Portfolio 4 and 5

Carbon storage deep down under

Otway Basin Pilot Project is the first carbon sequestration project implemented by Australia that is undergoing intensive monitoring by the relevant authority to ensure no leakage occurs. The Otway Basin is the most suitable site in Australia which is capable of storing 25% to 30% of Australia’s carbon dioxide emissions currently, it has been justified by geologists that it will store carbon dioxide safely based on its exceptional geological features. As a result, Kevin Dodds suggests that there should be no leakage in view of the stringent monitoring system and risk assessments already performed on the site. Besides that, he also mentioned that if CCS project is delayed, the climate problem could be much more difficult to deal with in the future. Furthermore, geosciences advisors proposed that every new coal power plant built from now on should be equipped with carbon capture devices to eliminate its carbon dioxide emissions.

References

Hoag, H. (2007). Carbon storage deep down under. Nature Reports Climate Change. doi: 10.1038/climate.2007.2

Going underground

From this article, the author mentioned that approximately 80% to 90% of carbon dioxide from conventional power plant can be eliminated if carbon capture and storage is deployed in large scale, at the same time it will reduce the global emission of carbon dioxide by one third. Despite the effectiveness of CCS, it is still a controversial issue whether the storage site could successfully confine liquid carbon dioxide without any risk of leakage. However, based on gravity surveys conducted on StatoilHydro's North Sea carbon-storage area, no leakage is detected so far although carbon dioxide in the storage site did spread as expected. Lastly, Steve Caldwell, a regional policy coordinator, suggests that the sooner CCS is being implemented, the more cost effective as well as better it is to mitigate climate change.

References

Schrope, M. (2008). Going underground. Nature Reports Climate Change. doi: 10.1038/climate.2008.121

Roundtable discussions

The first roundtable discussion was on green building, green building is partially adopted by the public because of the cost involved. Constructing a green building will cost more as the materials used have to be specially made while the design may be restricted because there are certain guidelines that must be adhere to. Thus, many authorities are not willing to increase their expenditure when constructing a building. Besides that, proper site and design have to be obtained in order to minimise the negative effects on neighbouring buildings. In addition, in most countries, their main priority is not on preserving the nature, instead these countries faces more devastating issues like starvation and natural disasters. Therefore, citizens in these countries are not keen on things that are not a necessity for their survival. However, green building in short still worth adopting as its benefits in the long run are tremendous.

Nanotechnology was the center issue during the second roundtable discussion, various examples have been provided to illustrate the potential benefits on mankind, from medical perspective to everyday products like cosmetics. The group suggested that suitable rules and guidelines should be imposed on the technology to allow maximum exploration of its potential. If rules and regulations are introduced extensively, the cost involved could also increase proportionally due to the increase number of tests and procedures. Another concern by opponents is that the nanoparticles may be lethal if inhale by human.

Finally, our group discussed about whether carbon capture and storage should or should not be implemented. Apparently, all of us do agree that it is advisable that CCS be adopted at this point of time while we are moving towards cleaner technology judging from its effectiveness in reducing CO₂ emissions. Although there are concerns regarding its potential impacts on the environment, this is merely a speculation since no leakage observed so far based on surveys done at existing storage sites. Therefore, this technology should not be abandoned just because of some minor concerns and because of that, ignoring its overall benefits on the environment. Even though CCS could mitigate climate change instantaneously, CCS should be noted as a temporary measure. Hence, alternative long term solutions have to be considered in the future to mitigate climate change thoroughly.