In this e-portfolio, I will identify 3 of my common grammar mistakes.
1. About the articles.
I usually misuse the articles, especially the definite article, 'the'.
e.g.
"Nowadays, we will no longer be surprised when we are reading a newspaper and find it saying the average temperature on the earth has increased by 0.4 to 0.8 degrees C since late 1800's."
In this sentence, I forget to put an article in front of the 'late 1800's'. Because 1800's is a very specific period of time.
The correct version is: "Nowadays, we will no longer be surprised when we are reading a newspaper and find it saying the average temperature on the earth has increased by 0.4 to 0.8 degrees C since the late 1800's."
2. The punctuations.
Sometimes I will misuse the semicolon when I actually need a comma there.
e.g.
"As the population on the earth is growing rapidly; there will be much more pressure on the environment than ever before."
In this sentence, we don't need to use a semicolon after the word 'rapidly'. Because these two parts are actually one sentence, not two.
The correct version is: "As the population on the earth is growing rapidly, there will be much more pressure on the envrionment than ever before."
3.About the pronouns.
I sometime misuse the pronouns, caused the sentence to be unnecessariely complex.
e.g.
"From Singapore's long-term development, it has the necessity promoting green chemistry."
In this sentence, 'it' represents 'Singapore's long-term development', but these two words are too near to each other, I don't need to use a preposition.
The correct version is: "Singapore's long-term development requires promoting green chemistry."
Apr 4, 2009
Roundtable discussion
Our topic of roundtable discussion is whether should my home country support Kirchhoff's claim that 'a collaborative effort by industry, academia, and government will promote the adoption of green chemistry technologies that are necessary to achieve a sustainable society.
There are 5 people in my group, Wang He is the moderator, Yan Lujiang and me are the proposition, Yi Rui and Dean are the opposition side. We choose Singapore as our home country.
Proposition's point of view:
1.Singapore is very small, there is no natural resources here. We have to find a way to achieve sustainable development.
2.We can also improve Singapore's industrial structure by promoting green chemistry.
3.Most importantly, by promoting green chemistry, we can improve manufacturing, and being friendly to the environment.
4.Comparing with developed country, developing coumtries are more suitable to promote green chemistry.
Opposition's point of view:
1.Manufacturing is not the most important part of Singapore's GDP. We don't have to spend too much money on promoting green chemistry.
2.We have to change product line if we want to promoting green chemistry, which will be time consuming.
During the Q&A session, a classmate asked me a question why green chemistry is more suitable in developing country rather than developed country. Actually, in developing country, things are not that well developed, once they decide to apply green chemistry, they can add this concept while developing and improving their manufacturing. But in developed country, industry is very well developed, if they want to applying green chemistry, they have to stop using the old product line and build a new one, which may be costly and time consuming.
There are 5 people in my group, Wang He is the moderator, Yan Lujiang and me are the proposition, Yi Rui and Dean are the opposition side. We choose Singapore as our home country.
Proposition's point of view:
1.Singapore is very small, there is no natural resources here. We have to find a way to achieve sustainable development.
2.We can also improve Singapore's industrial structure by promoting green chemistry.
3.Most importantly, by promoting green chemistry, we can improve manufacturing, and being friendly to the environment.
4.Comparing with developed country, developing coumtries are more suitable to promote green chemistry.
Opposition's point of view:
1.Manufacturing is not the most important part of Singapore's GDP. We don't have to spend too much money on promoting green chemistry.
2.We have to change product line if we want to promoting green chemistry, which will be time consuming.
During the Q&A session, a classmate asked me a question why green chemistry is more suitable in developing country rather than developed country. Actually, in developing country, things are not that well developed, once they decide to apply green chemistry, they can add this concept while developing and improving their manufacturing. But in developed country, industry is very well developed, if they want to applying green chemistry, they have to stop using the old product line and build a new one, which may be costly and time consuming.
Apr 3, 2009
Summary
I have read to articles for preparing the roundtable discussion. One is 'Promoting sustainability through green chemistry', by Kirchhoff, from Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 44, pp 237. The other one is ''Green Chemist' shows the way for Singapore', by Shobana Kesava, from http://www.wildsingapore.com/news/20070506/070519-2.htm.
In Kirchhoff's journal, green chemistry is defined as 'green chemistry is about the design of chemical products and processes that reduce or eliminate te huse and generation of hazardous substances'. And sustainable development is defined as 'development theat meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs'.
In Kirchhoff's journal, it is stated that a collaborative effort by industry, energy, academia, and government is needed to promote the adoption of the green chemistry technologies necessary to achieve a sustainable society. And the author talked in details about how the industry, academia and government should do to support green chemistry.
The citations of this journal are very good. It follows strictly the APA style. And the references comes from some other journals, the websites, some books and even national bureau, like U.S. Bureau of Engraving. All these proper citations make the contexts very convincible.
In Kesava's article, it also emphasizes the importance of green chemisty. But compare with the previous article, this one focuses more on the examples, using some facts to support the idea of promoting green chemistry. One example is that, a Japanese pharmeceutical company applies the concept of 'green chemistry' to improve their product line to remove the toxic ingredients, and save a lot of money as well. As a result, both the company and the customers are better off.
In contrast, Kesava's article does not use any citations, which is not so good. Without the citations, the readers cannot be convinced, the reader will not believe what you are saying is true. This is a very obvious shortcoming comparing with the previous journal by Kirchhoff.
In Kirchhoff's journal, green chemistry is defined as 'green chemistry is about the design of chemical products and processes that reduce or eliminate te huse and generation of hazardous substances'. And sustainable development is defined as 'development theat meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs'.
In Kirchhoff's journal, it is stated that a collaborative effort by industry, energy, academia, and government is needed to promote the adoption of the green chemistry technologies necessary to achieve a sustainable society. And the author talked in details about how the industry, academia and government should do to support green chemistry.
The citations of this journal are very good. It follows strictly the APA style. And the references comes from some other journals, the websites, some books and even national bureau, like U.S. Bureau of Engraving. All these proper citations make the contexts very convincible.
In Kesava's article, it also emphasizes the importance of green chemisty. But compare with the previous article, this one focuses more on the examples, using some facts to support the idea of promoting green chemistry. One example is that, a Japanese pharmeceutical company applies the concept of 'green chemistry' to improve their product line to remove the toxic ingredients, and save a lot of money as well. As a result, both the company and the customers are better off.
In contrast, Kesava's article does not use any citations, which is not so good. Without the citations, the readers cannot be convinced, the reader will not believe what you are saying is true. This is a very obvious shortcoming comparing with the previous journal by Kirchhoff.
Feb 1, 2009
CO2 capture and storage
In these three speeches, the lectureers talked about the same thing---carbon dioxide(CO2), but in different aspect.
In the first speech, the lecturer, Prof. Palmer, first talked about the present situation of our environment. He quoted some data to prove that we are facing a serious climate change. And one of the reasons is the unduly released CO2. Then he introduced a new high-tech method to store CO2---store them in the deep ocean at the liquid state. Secondly, he provided a solution to the global warming, which is put particls in the air to reflect the sunlight. As he stated, though it is technical feasible, but there do exist some political resistance.
The second lecturer, Dr. Sovacool, talked about the global warming and greenhouse effect in a different way, including the history of the development of modern industrial. As the productivity increases and our society more and more industrialized, the global warming will also become more and more serious.
Unlike the first two lecturers, rather than introducing the puzzledom we are facing, the last lecturer, AP. Bala, provided some detailed solutions to this problem as well, such as increasing the taxes on oil or other products that may generate CO2; using renewable energy and so on.
What impressed me most is the way o storing CO2 the first lecturer mentioned. I think it is quite interesting to compress CO2 into liquid and transport it into the deep ocean. But it is only 'interesting' to me; I do not think it is practical. Firstly, suppose we do make this method realistic, we need to transport million tons or even more liquid CO2 to the ocean every year. That is quite a big amount. The direct consequence I think is the environmental balance in the seabed will be destroyed. As we know, there are lots of plants and animals living only in the seabed, the huge amount of CO2 will definitely ruin theri habitant.
Secondly, as we are only store the CO2, but not convert it to some other harmless chemicals, it has the potential to do harm to people. To make it obvious, let's think about the earthquake in the seabed. Suppose we have successfully stored CO2 in teh ocean, as we know, there are possibilities of earthquake or volcanic eruption. At that time, liquid CO2 will be brought to the upper layer of the ocean, and the high-pressure condition will be break down. As a result, liquid CO2 will become gas again and come out of the ocean. We can try to imagine that as million, or billion tons of CO2 come to atmosphere in a single day at a certain place, how fateful it will be!
However, as the scientist do more research on this, and improve this method, it may come into realistic someday.
In the first speech, the lecturer, Prof. Palmer, first talked about the present situation of our environment. He quoted some data to prove that we are facing a serious climate change. And one of the reasons is the unduly released CO2. Then he introduced a new high-tech method to store CO2---store them in the deep ocean at the liquid state. Secondly, he provided a solution to the global warming, which is put particls in the air to reflect the sunlight. As he stated, though it is technical feasible, but there do exist some political resistance.
The second lecturer, Dr. Sovacool, talked about the global warming and greenhouse effect in a different way, including the history of the development of modern industrial. As the productivity increases and our society more and more industrialized, the global warming will also become more and more serious.
Unlike the first two lecturers, rather than introducing the puzzledom we are facing, the last lecturer, AP. Bala, provided some detailed solutions to this problem as well, such as increasing the taxes on oil or other products that may generate CO2; using renewable energy and so on.
What impressed me most is the way o storing CO2 the first lecturer mentioned. I think it is quite interesting to compress CO2 into liquid and transport it into the deep ocean. But it is only 'interesting' to me; I do not think it is practical. Firstly, suppose we do make this method realistic, we need to transport million tons or even more liquid CO2 to the ocean every year. That is quite a big amount. The direct consequence I think is the environmental balance in the seabed will be destroyed. As we know, there are lots of plants and animals living only in the seabed, the huge amount of CO2 will definitely ruin theri habitant.
Secondly, as we are only store the CO2, but not convert it to some other harmless chemicals, it has the potential to do harm to people. To make it obvious, let's think about the earthquake in the seabed. Suppose we have successfully stored CO2 in teh ocean, as we know, there are possibilities of earthquake or volcanic eruption. At that time, liquid CO2 will be brought to the upper layer of the ocean, and the high-pressure condition will be break down. As a result, liquid CO2 will become gas again and come out of the ocean. We can try to imagine that as million, or billion tons of CO2 come to atmosphere in a single day at a certain place, how fateful it will be!
However, as the scientist do more research on this, and improve this method, it may come into realistic someday.
An Inconveniet Truth
This is my second time watching this documentary. I am shocked again. Al Gore used very vivi graphs and data to show us how serious the environmental problems we are facing are. As our society develops, the inevitable consequence is that our environment is worse and worse. our earth is becoming more and more infirm, especially due to the releasing of the greenhouse gases.
In this documentary, Gore tried to convince the audience that it is time for us to take measures to stop polluting the environment, or thegreenhouse effect will went even worse, the destructive climate change will kill all of us. Though he had recognized this inconvenient truth, he did not give any specific solutions to help us get rid of it; rather, he generally suggested us reducing releasing of the greenhouse gases. He emphasized the responsibility of US citizens again and again during the documentary, he thought th US could and should take responsibilityis to solve the problem of global warming. But actually, it is impossible for relying on 'some' people on the earth to solve this world wide problems. All the people should take part in and contribute to it.
For the governments, they should disseminate the importance of protecting the environment and set examples for people to follow. Environmental problems are very big issues that they are closely related to a country's developmental modality. The government can not simply promulgate a new law to prohibit or restrict releasing greenhouse gases, the development of the country's economics should also be taken into account. The government can only encourage people doing researches on renewable energies and replace the traditional energy sources gradually. Policies can not work very well in helping solving the problem; rather, policies are only guidelines that provide the orientation of development. The very basic thing the 'policies' should do is only make people realize the importance of protecting our environment.
In this documentary, Gore tried to convince the audience that it is time for us to take measures to stop polluting the environment, or thegreenhouse effect will went even worse, the destructive climate change will kill all of us. Though he had recognized this inconvenient truth, he did not give any specific solutions to help us get rid of it; rather, he generally suggested us reducing releasing of the greenhouse gases. He emphasized the responsibility of US citizens again and again during the documentary, he thought th US could and should take responsibilityis to solve the problem of global warming. But actually, it is impossible for relying on 'some' people on the earth to solve this world wide problems. All the people should take part in and contribute to it.
For the governments, they should disseminate the importance of protecting the environment and set examples for people to follow. Environmental problems are very big issues that they are closely related to a country's developmental modality. The government can not simply promulgate a new law to prohibit or restrict releasing greenhouse gases, the development of the country's economics should also be taken into account. The government can only encourage people doing researches on renewable energies and replace the traditional energy sources gradually. Policies can not work very well in helping solving the problem; rather, policies are only guidelines that provide the orientation of development. The very basic thing the 'policies' should do is only make people realize the importance of protecting our environment.
Jan 21, 2009
The expanding world of engineers
Since tens of years ago, especially from the beginning of the 21st century, the world is being more and more 'complex'. As the internet develops, communication and information is no more a barrier for us. We will face plenty of new information every day, and also, we will face so many complicated problems which may involve law, finance or business sectors even though we are just engineers. So the meaning of 'engineer' should be widened.
Engineers are no more the people who build a house, design electronic goods, or manufacture the product lines. We have to accomplish the ability to systematically analyze information and design solutions for the complicated problems we may encounter. University is the best place to provide trainings to help engineers master those abilities.
During our university lives, we should learn as much as we can, not just focusing on the so called core modules, we need, should, and must learn something which may seems so far away from engineers. We need to know economics, which tells us how the world's economy is going on; we need to know management, which tells us how to be a good manager; we also need to science which is more logistic, could make us think logically.
More over, as we are engineers, while learning those 'professional' skills, we need to TRY, we need to 'dirty our hands'. When we are actually trying to solve those practical problems, we could learn lots of thing which we can not get from any textbooks.
As the world develops, we would find ability to systematically analyze complex information and to apply a holistic approach in designing solutions more and more important. A civil engineer who only knows building houses, or a chemical engineer who only knows petrol, can never success.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
