Chem321:Discussion 4

THE SUSTAINABLE WORLD (Chemistry 321)
MAIN PAGE
Syllabus — Schedule
Welcome page Contact Dr. Walker
This week
Today's tasks — (tomorrow)
Course units 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14
Moodle site
Course content
Assignments Paper - Acme - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 Final exam - Practice final
Practice problems
Discussions
General wiki help
Basic editing Create an account Protocols Tutorial Demo, for practice

This discussion is based on discussing two questions, and it is set to take place on the wiki, over the next few days (until midnight on Monday, 16th July). We will leave comments on the page below, in response to (and under) the questions posted or the related responses. Be sure to start your text with a *, and sign your responses with four tilde marks at the end.

Laws of conservation of matter and energy

Classical laws of chemistry and thermodynamics tell us that neither mass and energy cannot be destroyed; both are conserved during any physical or chemical process. (Strictly speaking we should use a combination of mass-energy when talking about nuclear reactions, but these are rare on Earth.) What can we learn from the conservation of mass and conservation of energy when considering global resources of mass and energy?

• These sources may be finite, but their energy is not. Although it loses its sense of exergy once it's been used up (like gasoline), that new heat energy impacts other environments and systems and causes changes to occur. This can be applied to many different forms of energy that we use daily- if we use less of these resources, than less heat will be transferred to neighboring environments later on. By reducing our inputs, we reduce our outputs of waste and damage. HKopelson (talk) 10:29, 16 July 2012 (EDT)
• What we learn is that in any process that we engage in to harness energy, we do not lose this energy from engaging in the process. When we burn wood for heat energy, we do not lose the energy created, it absorbs into our bodies and aids in the functioning of the chemical and biological processes that occur in our bodies. The energy and mass that we use in a process is neither created or destroyed by that process, so therefore, if we innovate and discover new ways of using waste and new ways of harnessing already released energy, we can make process much more efficient. The main idea is that we will never lose the amount of energy and mater that we need to sustain our species, it just needs to be found in different locations than it already is.Stewarjm192 (talk) 13:55, 16 July 2012 (EDT)

Limitations

Science is clearly valuable when studying the environment. What do you perceive as the limitations of science in this context?

• Science helps us understand how systems work, especially ecosystems. By studying all of the relationships between living and non-living factors (ecology) that go into and out of an ecosystem, we can understand what's impacting that ecosystem negatively, what's key to making it thrive, what inhibits certain functions, among many other important aspects. However, just understanding these concepts doesn't solve any of the problems that we, or other entities, cause though. Science is used to develop technology to aid in eliminating these harmful problems. Science also can give us ideas of how to make these processes more efficient and less wasteful. But, science is only really a thought process; not a solution. It can be used in creatinga solution, but isn't one itself.HKopelson (talk) 10:33, 16 July 2012 (EDT)

• Science has always been a valuable resource in discovering new and more efficient ways of performing tasks. However, modern western science has always had a very on track mind when it comes to the theories it produces. Before Copernicus, the Earth was believed to be flat, which discouraged sailors and explorers from discovering new and more economically viable trade routs. Science sometimes portrays its findings as tell all answers to the issues being dealt with. In other words, the findings in one experiment are transposed to a larger scale and expected to work just as the experiment did. For most things this is OK, but when dealing with a system as vast and unpredictable as our environment, a much more dynamic perspective must be taken. Science in a laboratory can never duplicate the randomness of our ecosystem.Stewarjm192 (talk) 13:28, 16 July 2012 (EDT)

• Science is a very important part of life, and a is responsible for the things that we have today. Science allows us to understand why things are the way that they are and allows us to have technological advances to live the way that we live. The more science and technology that we use, sometimes can create more problems for us. There is always something bigger and better to try to solve... while science is important for the study of the environment.. living and nonliving, it is also probably one of the biggest causes of the destruction of it. It is because of science and experiments that we are loosing a lot of our natural resources and polluting the air. The living things in our ecosystem could never be replaced by science and technology. amannme192Amannme192 (talk) 15:37, 16 July 2012 (EDT)

Wonder tech

If you had $50 billion to spend on developing some new technology, what would you choose, and how would you spend the money?

• If I had $50 billion to spend on developing new technology, I'd develop a way to harness hydrogen as a fuel source for vehicles. I'd create the infrastructure needed in order to make it available to the public (equivalent of gas stations), I'd create a safer way to ensure that vehicles don't blow up upon crash, and I'd fund the research needed to make electrolysis more efficient (cost-wise and waste-wise). By making hydrogen powered cars available to the public, we'd cut our emissions greatly with a renewable resource. However, this would be a very costly project, hence the reason I'd put all of my money towards this verses another energy source.HKopelson (talk) 10:38, 16 July 2012 (EDT)

• As the student above me said, I would invest the $50 Billion dollars into an alternative fuel source, but it would not be hydrogen. Hydrogen fuel seems that it will always be to dangerous, and it as well is not entirely renewable. I would invest my money in discovering a viable way to harness tidal energy for practical use. If a generator could be placed out at sea to harness tidal movements, with an efficiency that allows us to use the electrical energy generated by the process even after the tides have passed. This technology can have some detrimental effects on ocean life by possibly blocking the movement of species, but they can be designed to minimize this impact. I feel that this technology would be one of the safest and most reliable technologies for harnessing energy from natural processes.Stewarjm192 (talk) 13:50, 16 July 2012 (EDT)