Chem321:Discussion 13

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

You have a lot of work going on, so this discussion is straightforward. Please leave your initial comment below by Wednesday, August 7th at midnight. Then, by Friday at noon, please post a followup answer to two other students' comments. Please start your comment with a star, and sign with four tilde marks.

"Choose one viable green technology that you would like to see widely adopted by 2050. What would that technology look like, and what effect would it have on our global environmental footprint?

Angela Caracci

• There are many advances in green technology in efforts to reduce the non-renewable resources we use as well as the carbon emissions we give off by current practices. By 2050 I would like to see many homes, as well as business' and factories producing their own energy. Throughout the semester I learned about the benefits of solar panels and wind turbines. We would see many roofs in the future with solar panels. These places would be using that energy for lighting, cooking, and heating, just to name a few. In addition to solar panels on the roof, we would see an increase of small scale and large scale wind turbines (depending on where they are being used). This too would be used for producing electricity. Both methods can drastically reduce the need to burn fossil fuels, and help us move away from using non-renewable resources. In the future these methods will become more affordable, and it will be the common method in obtaining energy for use. Angela.M.Caracci (talk) 16:35, 7 August 2013 (EDT)

• Angela, your proposal for rooftop solar panels and wind turbines competes with my proposal for rooftop greenhouses. As a rebuttal to your suggestion - I'd like to argue that wind-farms are better placed in environments where wind is abundant. This may suggest that wind energy could be more efficiently, in cost as well as time, be produced in strategically chosen sites. In contrast - rooftop greenhouses would allow for farmers to create controlled growth environments for their crops in any location, which could be grown through hydroponic methods. These crops could then be distributed locally to the population of the city. Furthermore, the reading assigned to us written by Chris Goodall suggests that solar energy thus far has not been able to replicate the cost-efficiency of simply insulating buildings more effectively. This is likely a greater concern in cities far from the equator where light might not be as abundant as it is in other cities. If solar energy is to become more cost effective though - perhaps you and I could compromise and find a way to created greenhouses that control internal heat alongside the use of solar panels found on the tops of the greenhouses. Tom.fuchs (talk) 18:43, 7 August 2013 (EDT)

• Tom, i really like the idea of rooftop greenhouses, but i find it hard to believe that in a near future most rooftops will be producing their own food. It is a great idea for farmers as you have mentioned, but i do not think the average "joe" will have time to maintain their garden, especially as we continue to live faster pace lives and demand things quicker. I believe that price is a large factor in why solar panels have not taken off, but with time and increased research they should become more obtainable. As for your comment on those who may not have as much wind for wind turbines or sun for solar panels to be effective, i agree these are issues for usage in those areas. The fact is most areas get sun and wind, and getting those areas to switch to solar panels or turbines would be the first step in decreasing our emissions and pollution.Angela.M.Caracci (talk) 22:58, 7 August 2013 (EDT)

Tom Fuchs

• A viable green technology I would like to see widely adopted by 2050 is commercial scale rooftop produce production. I have seen pictures of this sort of thing in optimistic “green” depictions of future cities. A company, called Lufa Farms, has successfully begun turning profits using a rooftop greenhouse in Montreal, Canada, a fairly cold environment. Lufa Farms describes using CO2 emissions from fuels used in energy production – to help the plants in the greenhouse grow – which allows for the farm to be close to carbon neutral (source - http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/intelligent-energy/coming-soon-commercial-scale-rooftop-produce/16889). Additionally – the greenhouse provides insulation for the buildings below it as it utilizes heat from the building to maintain adequate temperatures for growth in the greenhouse. These city rooftop greenhouses could provide food for entire cities through conservative methods such as hydroponics – thus reducing costs, oil use, use of raw materials, and emissions associated with transport of produce. Furthermore – these rooftop greenhouses could even potentially contain aquaponic systems! In this way – not only could rooftop greenhouses provide vegetables cities locally, but these greenhouses could also provide animal protein for the city population! Of course – a balance such as this would be quite the challenge to make profitable with the very limited space available. Additionally – the prospect of actually providing produce for an entire city utilizing these rooftop greenhouses is rather slim. The Food and Agriculture Organization estimates the need for 0.5 hectares (1.2 acres) of land necessary for the growth of produce for a single American resident in a year – however this estimate includes the current levels of meat consumption. If per capita meat consumption is to be reduced, then the use of rooftop greenhouses could potentially ACTUALLY provide a majority of the dietary needs of a community. On top of these great things – if rooftop buildings became commonplace in largely populated cities such as Tokyo or NYC, then the amount of soil turned and utilized for agriculture could potentially be re-allocated for the production of bio-fuels! These biofuels could then in turn be used to run our cars, buildings, and greenhouses. This use of biofuels could then subsequently vastly reduce carbon emissions used by a city.

Tom.fuchs (talk) 17:41, 7 August 2013 (EDT)

Abby Langdon

I would really like to see biodiesel that replaces fossil fuels we use in our cars be widely adopted by 2050. Biodiesel comes from a process that turns old cooking oil into a Constable form of fuel for diesel engines. This alternative would look a lot like the fuels we use now. Biodiesel has the ability to decrease our waste and reduce the amount of emissions we put into the atmosphere.

• This is very interesting. I like the idea of using old cooking oil as fuel, because it allows us to recycle from one process (cooking) and use the remains to run our car. It is beneficial to our environment as well! It does not contain any petroleum like the fuel we use now, and it will cut down on CO2 emissions. This would be great for the future. Angela.M.Caracci (talk) 16:42, 7 August 2013 (EDT)

Katie Lavoie

By 2050 I would like to see willow plants used as biofuel. As seen in Dr. Ewy’s video willows are viable during winter and are capable of growing on poor soil. The technology is already being put to use, it would just need to become more accepted and widespread. This type of technology is capable of having a large impact on our global environment. Fuels that are currently used to heat most homes and run various modes of transportation emit large amounts of pollution, with willows replacing those fuels pollution could be dramatically reduced.KatieLaVoie (talk) 21:58, 7 August 2013 (EDT)

Magenta Miller

One green technology I would like to see is better water purification systems in countries that need them the most. This will create more equal living standards for all people on earth. This is a basic necessity that all people have a right to so I think that by 2050 we should be able to deliver that standard. The technology would have to be easily used and assembled because many rural communities won't have access to certain technologies that would fix a broken water purifier. This would help to create clean water and a better environment for many people. (Magenta (talk) 18:06, 7 August 2013 (EDT))

• Magenta, there are a few ways water gets purified. I assume you would want to use green water purification which would involve treating water without adding anything to it. When we did our ACME presentations I talked about two possible ways to treat water, one being ozone and the other with UV light. Would you want to use methods like this? Also, above you said they won't have access to fix broken purifiers, so how would you make sure these systems are maintained? Overall I like any process that does not contribute to pollution and use a lot of energy, and green water purification is a great method to obtain clean water. :DAngela.M.Caracci (talk) 22:42, 7 August 2013 (EDT)

John Rogers

• I think that what would help us most is a more sustainable, nationwide hydrogen-fueled, high-speed/light rail system. I think that this would greatly improve our ability to use less energy, leaving less waste and mitigating the many negative impacts that we currently have on the ecosystem. I would start by soliciting the expertise and money found in the private sector; innovators, businessmen etc. I would then likely create a fund matching program whereby the federal government would match the funds raised by the pilot cities and their investors in order to instigate its growth. Lastly, I would organize a state subsidy rewarding drivers who have will sell their cars and rely in totem on the light/high speed rail system to travel within and between cities and states for at least two-years.Haw7thorne (talk) 23:57, 7 August 2013 (EDT)