The first "energy crisis" of 1974 was actually the result of the crude oil industry squelching domestic production in order to produce an artificial shortage in order to achieve deregulation, which they did finally get. This begat the false notion of "peak oil." The notion of "Carbon neutral is new, within the last 20 years. The notion of Carbon Trading was an outgrowth of the 1974 UN accords in Rio also known as Agenda 21. In 1978, PBS series, NOVA presented the first broadcast discussions of "carbon taxation" but back then it was to be used for purposes of developing the third world countries. It was co-opted by the bankers (who collect the taxes and profit themselves handsomely) who set up and own the carbon trading boards and broker carbon farming credits. Governments do not benefit from the scheme at all.

As for it’s impact on architecture, it led to the "Solar 1" house style in 1974, which did dominate architecture of the mid/late 1970′s in homes, apartment complexes and condominiums in shape, not always in actual prime solar aspect. and "Energy Home" designs begining about 1977/78 with 6 inch stud walls instead of 4 and making them airtight, which led to the recent requirement for air exchangers.

As far as capturing sunlight for interior lighting, it predate”s Frank Lloyd Wright’s Johson Wax building by many decades. Clerestory window ridges were common industrial fixtures for ventillation and lighting well back into the 18th century.

The problem you will encounter is the "Energy Codes" do change, and the first ones were implemented in the late 1970′s. It has taken 2 generations for the environmental socialism, for that is what it is when you look at the "movement" behind most of the changes you see in architecture and notions of "Carbon Neutral." Much of it is industry propaganda in fact. Lead in paint was a big issue in the 1970′s for example. The result was to push automakers headlong into Eurethane finishes, that still contained lead, but now incorporated much more hazardous catalyst- Poly IsoCyanate. Which while used in small amounts with some older finishes that contained lead, was used in greater amounts in the paint that used less lead. You stilll ahve lead in the paint of your family car in most cases. Union Carbide profited greatly. Just as Dupont profited greatly from the ozone scare- Dupont funded the groups that protested R-12 because Dupont had the replacement oatented and ready to put into production and at the same time their patents were running out on a number of Freon products (CFC’s) Dupont profited handsomely.

RoHS is one where there is not a real clear winner except for the silver producers, but facets of Rohs, implemented initially in the 1990′s has influenced some electrical products in use in homes and industry exclusive of the electronics you plug into the wall. Many GFCI’s and AFCI"s are RoHS compliant. Even though there is mercury in your CFL’s and flourescent lighting in general, the ballasts for those now are RoHS compliant even though the mercury is not.

So your hands are full because there was no single defining event or development that precipitated the thesis you propose except for perhaps the first "Earth Day." when the environmental socialism first took root in an organized way. But they knew back then public schools primarily and schools in general were petri dishes for culturing social engineering ideals in order to enact change that reduces choices and freedoms.

It is what the AD Council is all about- social engineering, and they want to broad brush all their initiatives which is why their ads are so notoriously stupid these days.

But when it comes to anabolic reaction, it seems contradicting. When our body makes muscle or fat, it forms chemical bonds, right? Where is the energy that released from the bonding of muscle or fat? Can we use it? Doesn’t it mean that we get double energy? One is from the stored energy in the form of muscle or fat, another is from the released energy of bond forming process.

I know this all sounds weird. But I would thank very much if someone explains these things thoroughly to me

Bonds contain Potential energy (the ability to do work) due to many factors: Electron position, natural shape, form, type of chemical in question, etc). Energy is con-severed, meaning you can’t get "double energy". Energy is energy. it can be put in different forms (potential energy, kinetic energy,etc), but energy in itself can’t be changed (energy: ability to do work)

When it comes to reaction, there are two types of reactions: exothermic (giving off heat reactions : reactants –> products + energy) and endothermic reactions (absorbing heat reactions: reactants + energy –> products). Note that reactants don’t instantly become products. A series a complex steps happens between them that involves breaking, and reforming of different bonds before the FINAL products results.

" When a chemical bond is FORMED energy is released, v/v" , is actually what happens when "sufficient additional energy" is added to overcome what we call activated complex point. Energy is then released after the reaction. That new energy created (the ability to do work) is used to reform NEW bonds, the bonds you see in your net (start-finish) equation. At the end of all the reactions, there may be a TOTAL loss of energy or TOTAL gain in energy OF THE SURROUNDINGS.

It’s hard to explain, I had the same question as you; I took an advanced bio course before I took the recommended pre-req chem courses. In time you’ll understand chemical bonds

Hope this gives you something to chew on.

How are peas and other legumes involved in the nitrogen cycle?

Suppose 10,000 units of energy are available at the level of the grasses. What is the total number of energy units lost by the time energy reaches the coyote?

What are some factors that might stop a population’s exponential growth?

What is a carrying capacity?

It’s more efficient to eat plants, since the higher the trophic level, the less (original) energy is available. Some energy is always lost between trophic levels, so the lower the trophic level, the more anergy is available.

Legumes have bacteria growing on their roots that convert atmospheric nitrogen to a form the plants can use.

What coyote?

Population growth is affected by limiting factors: predators, the availablility of food, water, living space, mates, etc.

Carrying capacity (k) is the number of individuals of a species that a particular habitat can support. It’s based on how much food each needs, how much living space, etc.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/pber.html#beq

Also, if a star’s mass is the force that combines hydrogen atoms and creates all the elements (via gravity), doesn’t all energy in the universe initially come from the force of gravity? Where does this energy come from?

Mass and energy are the same thing, and the law of conservation of energy says "energy cannot be created or destroyed, only converted from one form to another".
As far as I can understand, some fusion reactions release energy, proton-proton repulsion, stored in atomic nuclei. Other fusion reactions store energy in the form of proton-proton repulsion. As well, neutron absorption following neutron-proton transmutation store energy in heavier atomic nuclei such as uranium. Hence, neutron is needed to destabilize heavier atomic nuclei releasing stored energy, as well energetic collisions to fuse light atomic nuclei creating unstable nuclei releasing energy, or creating stable nuclei storing energy.
Gravational energy is not consumed, I think it acts as a catalyst increasing pressure, which increases the temperature favoring energetic collisions.

Also if you dropped it, would it be from Gravitational potential energy to Kinetic Energy?

well if you picked it up it would be kinetic energy wouldn’t it since it has inertia and speed as you lift it.

and yes if you drop it gravitational potential will turn to kinetic.

for the first point i would say kinetic to gravitational

Here are all of the forms of energy:
thermal, electrical, radiant, nuclear potential, gravitation potential, kinetic, elastic potential, sound, and chemical potential.

I also need to know the wind turbines energy transformation equation.
For example a microwave oven,
electrical energy -> radiant energy -> thermal energy

Please help
help will be greatly appreciated and rewarded with points ofc

The mass and velocity of the air give it KE
The wind turbine blades convert the KE to ME (mechanical energy; the one you left out of your list of ‘all’ the forms of energy…!)
The generator converts the ME to electrical energy, the most useful grade of energy.

At each conversion point, some of the input energy is not used, causing the output energy to be less than the input. For ex: The wind downstream of the blades is slowed, but not stopped. Ergo, it still has some of its KE and the blades have picked up the rest as ME. As I recall, the maximum efficiency of any blade system is about 36%. The ME to EE step is about 90% efficient. Of course, all the efficiencies multiply, so you come out with less than 36%, but considering that the original wind energy is created directly from solar heating of land masses (ie, free), things don’t look so gloomy…….

that’s the definition for a transverse wave, only ‘displacement’ is used instead of energy.
the energy travelling causes such displacement.

B) The reactants are at a higher potential energy compared to the products.

C) The reactants are at a lower potential energy compared to the products.

D) There will not be an activation energy barrier.

B)