Difference between revisions of "Chem321:Discussion 10"

From WikiChem
Jump to: navigation, search
(Fix typo)
(Alexane Rodrigue)
 
(17 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
{{Chem321 navigation}}
 
{{Chem321 navigation}}
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, 6th July).  We will leave comments on the page below, in response to (and under) the questions posted or the related responsesBe sure to start your text with a *, and sign your responses with four tilde marks at the end.
+
Look at the [http://www2.epa.gov/green-chemistry/presidential-green-chemistry-challenge-winners winners of the Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge], and pick out one winner.  Below (under the header with your name), describe how the technology exemplifies green chemistry, and also mention any shortcomings or limitations of the technology. 
[[Category:Chemistry 321 discussions]]
+
 
 +
Post an answer on ''one'' such technology by 11:59pm on Wednesday, July 29th, 2015.  Then post one followup comment on another student's answer by 11:59pm on Friday, July 31st, 2015.
 +
 
 +
==Katie Fetcie==
 +
 
 +
 
 +
 
 +
==Grant Gallagher==
 +
 
 +
 
 +
 
 +
==Alexander Levitz==
 +
I chose the 2010 Small Business Award for the microbial production of renewable petroleum fuels and chemicals, which is a phenomenally awesome and laudable process. This process employs microbes to synthesize products like Ultraclean diesel and a variety of other chemicals, as it exploits their natural abilities to metabolize various fermentable sugars (this process is also tailored through the utilization of recombinant technologies, which allow for the introduction of new biochemical pathways in these various microbes). These processes are superior to the other biofuel production processes, as these microbes do not require the addition of metal catalysts, and the microbes are capable of secreting the finished fuels or chemicals into the growth media. This advent exemplifies green chemistry as it improves the efficiency of a chemical process whilst simultaneously reducing the overall environmental impact. For example, the utilization of this method in producing biofuels eliminates the benzene, sulfur, and heavy metals found in traditional petroleum-based diesel, thus reducing the amount of adverse waste produced, and improving the overall affordability. [[User:Alexanderlevitz|Alexanderlevitz]] ([[User talk:Alexanderlevitz|talk]]) 23:22, 29 July 2015 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:*That type of technology could turn out to be very importantI think we as a society will always need some type of chemical fuel for some purposes - e.g., for heating a house - and being able to produce fuels from renewable resources is the sensible way to do that.  However, one drawback is that such biological processes (like fermentation) are very slow; that's why beer is much more expensive than soda, really!  Despite that, much of our gasoline incorporates ethanol from fermentation, so it's definitely feasible. [[User:Walkerma|Martin A. Walker]] ([[User talk:Walkerma|talk]]) 15:20, 31 July 2015 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
==Triston Riley==
 +
 
 +
2015 Specific Environmental Benefit: Climate Change Award.
 +
The technology that won this award was The Algenol Biofuel Process, this process developed a blue-green algae to produce ethanol and other fuels. This exemplifies green chemistry because of the fact that this is a smart way to create a cleaner fuel. It is also a good way to reduce the carbon foot print from creating gas with ethanol thats in it. So not only does this technology reduce our environmental impact, but it is a sophisticated new method for developing and or replacing gasoline better. The only real limitation of this technology is the fact that it only converts 80% of the photosynthetically fixed carbon into ethanol, and also that they can only absorb so much photons, and actually still be able to use them for this process. [[User:Rileytc197|Rileytc197]] ([[User talk:Rileytc197|talk]]) 08:31, 28 July 2015 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:Triston - yes, that's a really cool choice! Which green chemistry principles do you think would apply here? [[User:Walkerma|Martin A. Walker]] ([[User talk:Walkerma|talk]]) 16:29, 28 July 2015 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
I think that for sure the principles of preventing waste, this also creates a less hazardous chemical synthesis. It even increases the energy efficiency since instead of using energy to create the ethanol, it is made naturally. [[User:Rileytc197|Rileytc197]] ([[User talk:Rileytc197|talk]]) 17:31, 28 July 2015 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
==Alexane Rodrigue==
 +
I chose the 2013 Greener Synthetic Pathways Award because I believe it exemplifies green chemistry perfectly by finding a way to improve the manufacturing of PCR reagents so that it is more environmentally friendly. Polymerase chain reactions are used all the time in research, yet they tend to produce a lot of hazardous waste. Green chemistry is demonstrated many times with this pathway because it lowers the amount of steps in the reaction, lowers organic solvent use by 95%, lowers hazardous waste by 65%. The E-factor has been reduced from 3200 to 400, which prevents 1.5 million pounds of waste. They have also improved specificity of the reaction which is an important step when it comes to chemistry, and they minded their use of volatile solvents and reagents. I can't really find a short-coming for this process as it seems to completely incorporate most of steps of green chemistry into one process that is much more efficient than the older one. [[User:Rodrigaf197|Rodrigaf197]] ([[User talk:Rodrigaf197|talk]]) 19:59, 29 July 2015 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
* I defenently agree with you, the process of PCR is a greatly used thing for scientists around the world who are making ground breaking discoveries. ( and even those who arnt) It is important that while we are making all of these discoveries that are helping people and changing the world, that we are not creating so much waste, and poising our world in the process. [[User:Rileytc197|Rileytc197]] ([[User talk:Rileytc197|talk]]) 14:47, 30 July 2015 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:*The biochemists will be happy!  This type of thing is big business now, and although it won't have the enormous impact you might see from a new type of gasoline, this technology is already out there and being used for full scale production.  It's amazing how often something is made a certain way because "that's how it's made"; once someone takes the time to design a greener pathway they may make incredible improvements, and make the process cheaper into the bargain. [[User:Walkerma|Martin A. Walker]] ([[User talk:Walkerma|talk]]) 15:32, 31 July 2015 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
:*I personally love this innovation, as I have performed various PCR procedures, and have probably used around half a liter of deoxynucleotide triphosphates (dNTPs), which are the “reagents” (the "building blocks" for the growing chains of DNA) that they have improved upon. A reduction of 65% of the hazardous waste generated is phenomenal, especially considering how ubiquitous and pertinent the polymerase chain reaction is (e.g. it is used in forensics, site-directed mutagenesis, diagnosing diseases, and countless other intriguing applications). [[User:Alexanderlevitz|Alexanderlevitz]] ([[User talk:Alexanderlevitz|talk]]) 23:58, 31 July 2015 (EDT)
 +
 
 +
==Jasmine Ruiz==
 +
 
  
==Biofuels in the North Country==
 
What the the possibilities for biofuel production in the North Country? Could these replace petroleum-based fuels locally? Could they become a major cash crop for local farmers?
 
  
Consider the question with two scenarios - (a) the status quo or (b) after global oil demand surged ahead of supply, and so there is a price spike for gasoline and similar liquid fuels.
+
==Jillian Visser==
*Based upon the very limited growing season in the North Country (approx. 60-70 days), I think the chance to grow biofuels is very limited. If we were to grow biofuels, corn would be a good option because it grows so quickly. Even if global oil demand sky-rocketed, I don't think the North Country would be the optimal region to start a massive biofuel attempt. If, however, there's a biofuel that can withstand freezes and thaws well, than the North Country could stand a chance of producing that biofuel. Since the North Country is also relatively poor, it would provide decent jobs and could help the region. If the market stays as is, I don't think there's a good market up here for it. [[User:HKopelson|HKopelson]] ([[User talk:HKopelson|talk]]) 11:18, 30 July 2012 (EDT)
 
*I believe that only scenario (b) would make bio-fuels economically viable for the North Country, by today's definition. With the severity of winter, and unpredictable nature of the rest of the seasons here in Potsdam, locally produced Bio-fuel would be relatively expensive compared to gasoline and other fossil fuels. Only when fossil fuel reserves are depleted to a point to cause a huge spike in the price will North Country produced bio-fuel be affordable and economicly viable as a substitute. We will see more benefit from other alternative fuels, such as wind and solar energy. Another possibility that could make bio-fuels economicly viable here in the north-country would be if the definition of "economic viability" were changed. Currently this term means that the price is cheap compared to other alternatives at the time, only taking into account normal costs and benefits. If environmental damage and longevity(normally externalities) were also included in prices, gasoline and other fossil fuels would become much more expensive than the bio-fuels created here in the north-country.[[User:Stewarjm192|Stewarjm192]] ([[User talk:Stewarjm192|talk]]) 13:21, 30 July 2012 (EDT)
 
*I think that it would be very difficult for the biofuel production in the North Country. The winters are too severe that everything dies off- we get temperatures way to low to even consider this. Not only do temperatures get too low, but the drastic changes in temperatures also wouldn't be good for the biofuel industry. Our growing season is too short, from winter's freezing temperatures to falls frosts- it just wouldn't be possible. If there was a price spike for gasoline I think that farmers in the north country could rely on the windmills and solar power, although they may be expensive at first- solar and wind power will always be around so they will end up getting their money back- even in the winter months we have both of these. amannme192[[User:Amannme192|Amannme192]] ([[User talk:Amannme192|talk]]) 13:33, 30 July 2012 (EDT)
 
*I don't think biofuel production would be easy to implement in the North Country. The winters are too long and the growing season is too short to allow farmers to grow the crops needed to make these biofuels. If and when the price of gasoline skyrockets, there are several options for the people who live in this region - buy electric or hybrid vehicles, use solar power and/or wind power (there are wind farms near Lowville and Chateaugay that would be useful in this scenario), or import biofuels from somewhere else. [[User:AndrewSears|AndrewSears]] ([[User talk:AndrewSears|talk]]) 20:41, 30 July 2012 (EDT)
 
*Biofuel production is a new innovative technology in the United States. I believe that biofuel needs to be more widely used throughout the U.S. before it will be introduced in the North Country. The North Country is a low-income region that is far away from highly populated areas. If the North Country was able to get funding or if they did have the money to invest in biofuel production I do think that it could become a gas crop for local farmers. Although, in the North Country many farmers sell their produce locally, so it would be a possibility that it would not be successful. I think that the North Country will most likely not generate biofuel production in the near future, unless there is a major change in the economy or supply that would force them to change. [[User:Balbiaka|Balbiaka]] ([[User talk:Balbiaka|talk]]) 22:19, 30 July 2012 (EDT)
 
*I think that the biofuel production in the North Country would have some benefit to our fuel supply, but it wouldn’t be a total replacement of petroleum-based fuels. It would end up being a fairly large cash crop, but the climate in the area would limit the amount that can be grown. At first it would be cheaper to use the biofuel, but with the limit to how long our growing season is, the price would probably increase. We would need to import biofuels if we were to primarily switch to it. However, if it were only in moderate demand allowing both fuels to be used, the North Country could benefit from it’s production. Another possibility is the rise of gas/electric cars. If those became more prominent in the area, less fuels would need to be used by each person, making it easier to make the biofuels a more principal source of our fuel.[[User:Racinea|Racinea]] ([[User talk:Racinea|talk]]) 22:40, 30 July 2012 (EDT)
 
*I don't think biofuel production would be a good idea for the North Country due to the long, cold winters, and short growing season. Overall, I do think biofuel production will replace petroleum-based fuels in our country. Trying a small, biofuel production project in a random town in the North Country could be a smart move just to see if it can work in this region. The North Country would benefit greatly if biofuel production was successful here because it create many jobs and bring much needed money to a region that is struggling. Corn would be the best in my opinion for biofuel production in this area. It could definitely become a major cash crop for local farmers, and bring economic prosperity to them and others in many others states. Oil is a finite resource, so biofuel production, through a slow transition, will probably replace it someday.[[User:Cronyy5180|Cronyy5180]] ([[User talk:Cronyy5180|talk]]) 02:25, 31 July 2012 (EDT)
 
  
 +
Algenol is a global, industrial biotechnology company that is commercializing its patented algae technology platform for production of ethanol and other biofuels. The Company’s technology is a unique two-step process that first produces ethanol directly from the algae and then converts the spent algae biomass to biodiesel, gasoline and jet fuel. It is the only renewable fuel production process that can convert more than 85% of its CO2 feedstock into the four most important fuels.  Algenol exemplifies green chemistry because it follows the principles of green chemistry.  Ethanol, used in gas pumps across the country, is typically made from the fermentation of sugars produced by plants such as corn and sugar cane.  But through the innovation of converting algae into a “green crude”, Algenol has successfully developed a fossil fuel replacement with yields 20 times greater than that of corn.  Algenol is a unique platform by which renewable resources are used to produce biofuels and ethanol in an environmentally friendly way. "The company captures, recycles and utilizes CO2. Its pathway reduces Green House Gas Emissions by 69% compared to gasoline according to the official EPA pathway approval. A single 2,000 acre commercial Algenol module is the equivalent to planting 40-million trees or removing 36-thousand cars from the road!"  One of the limitations of Algenol is that it needs to be grown in a warmer climate where the sun shines most of the day all year round.  Areas like Florida and California are prime locations for the product to be grown. 
 +
Here is a link that describes a little bit more about the process:
 +
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEg2HmxedDw&list=PL7Moaj2PKS929I8rNRX5cWrsjeM3yh6hJ
 +
:*Yes, this is very nice technology.  We're already using bioethanol in large quantities in gasoline, but it's not really sustainable at the moment.  Switching to the Algenol product would make it sustainable.  Also, see Triston's post above.  [[User:Walkerma|Martin A. Walker]] ([[User talk:Walkerma|talk]]) 15:24, 31 July 2015 (EDT)
  
 +
==Any general comments==
  
:::You're right that the climate works against us, and that applies to any agrobusiness in the area.  Nevertheless, some plants do manage to thrive up here!  We have a lot of marginal land available that isn't used for farming; it's unlikely that prime farmland will (or should!) be used for growing willow or switchgrass.  Poverty may be a reason to do this - if it could be used to create productive employment.  But if so, which plant sources would work best up in the North Country, if any?
 
*I'd say that corn might be a good crop- it grows quickly and there are enough GMO's/hybrids that might survive better up in the North Country. [[User:HKopelson|HKopelson]] ([[User talk:HKopelson|talk]]) 08:26, 31 July 2012 (EDT)
 
  
* Biofuels could possibly be viable in the North Country due to our vast amounts of farmable land and ample water supply, however we do have an extremely short growing season.  It would also likely lead to deforestation and farmers turning away from growing other crops or raising beef.  Supplies would be cut of 3/4 out of the year because of the growing season.  A better alternative for the North Country would be to set up a infrastructure for electric vehicles and use the electricity from our hydroelectric power plants nearby.  This may not be comepetative economically compared to fossil fuels in some areas (outside Massena). However, it could be possible if we were some how subsidized by the state and federal government for using clean energy sources.  This would likely create many more jobs and make the North Country more self-sufficient in their energy needs.[[User:Maxwelk192|Maxwelk192]] ([[User talk:Maxwelk192|talk]]) 11:11, 31 July 2012 (EDT)
+
<!-------Please don't type below this line---------->
 +
[[Category:Chemistry 321 discussions]]

Latest revision as of 23:58, 31 July 2015

THE SUSTAINABLE
WORLD
(Chemistry 321)
Earth from space
MAIN PAGE
SyllabusSchedule
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

Look at the winners of the Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge, and pick out one winner. Below (under the header with your name), describe how the technology exemplifies green chemistry, and also mention any shortcomings or limitations of the technology.

Post an answer on one such technology by 11:59pm on Wednesday, July 29th, 2015. Then post one followup comment on another student's answer by 11:59pm on Friday, July 31st, 2015.

Katie Fetcie

Grant Gallagher

Alexander Levitz

I chose the 2010 Small Business Award for the microbial production of renewable petroleum fuels and chemicals, which is a phenomenally awesome and laudable process. This process employs microbes to synthesize products like Ultraclean diesel and a variety of other chemicals, as it exploits their natural abilities to metabolize various fermentable sugars (this process is also tailored through the utilization of recombinant technologies, which allow for the introduction of new biochemical pathways in these various microbes). These processes are superior to the other biofuel production processes, as these microbes do not require the addition of metal catalysts, and the microbes are capable of secreting the finished fuels or chemicals into the growth media. This advent exemplifies green chemistry as it improves the efficiency of a chemical process whilst simultaneously reducing the overall environmental impact. For example, the utilization of this method in producing biofuels eliminates the benzene, sulfur, and heavy metals found in traditional petroleum-based diesel, thus reducing the amount of adverse waste produced, and improving the overall affordability. Alexanderlevitz (talk) 23:22, 29 July 2015 (EDT)

  • That type of technology could turn out to be very important. I think we as a society will always need some type of chemical fuel for some purposes - e.g., for heating a house - and being able to produce fuels from renewable resources is the sensible way to do that. However, one drawback is that such biological processes (like fermentation) are very slow; that's why beer is much more expensive than soda, really! Despite that, much of our gasoline incorporates ethanol from fermentation, so it's definitely feasible. Martin A. Walker (talk) 15:20, 31 July 2015 (EDT)

Triston Riley

2015 Specific Environmental Benefit: Climate Change Award. The technology that won this award was The Algenol Biofuel Process, this process developed a blue-green algae to produce ethanol and other fuels. This exemplifies green chemistry because of the fact that this is a smart way to create a cleaner fuel. It is also a good way to reduce the carbon foot print from creating gas with ethanol thats in it. So not only does this technology reduce our environmental impact, but it is a sophisticated new method for developing and or replacing gasoline better. The only real limitation of this technology is the fact that it only converts 80% of the photosynthetically fixed carbon into ethanol, and also that they can only absorb so much photons, and actually still be able to use them for this process. Rileytc197 (talk) 08:31, 28 July 2015 (EDT)

Triston - yes, that's a really cool choice! Which green chemistry principles do you think would apply here? Martin A. Walker (talk) 16:29, 28 July 2015 (EDT)

I think that for sure the principles of preventing waste, this also creates a less hazardous chemical synthesis. It even increases the energy efficiency since instead of using energy to create the ethanol, it is made naturally. Rileytc197 (talk) 17:31, 28 July 2015 (EDT)

Alexane Rodrigue

I chose the 2013 Greener Synthetic Pathways Award because I believe it exemplifies green chemistry perfectly by finding a way to improve the manufacturing of PCR reagents so that it is more environmentally friendly. Polymerase chain reactions are used all the time in research, yet they tend to produce a lot of hazardous waste. Green chemistry is demonstrated many times with this pathway because it lowers the amount of steps in the reaction, lowers organic solvent use by 95%, lowers hazardous waste by 65%. The E-factor has been reduced from 3200 to 400, which prevents 1.5 million pounds of waste. They have also improved specificity of the reaction which is an important step when it comes to chemistry, and they minded their use of volatile solvents and reagents. I can't really find a short-coming for this process as it seems to completely incorporate most of steps of green chemistry into one process that is much more efficient than the older one. Rodrigaf197 (talk) 19:59, 29 July 2015 (EDT)

  • I defenently agree with you, the process of PCR is a greatly used thing for scientists around the world who are making ground breaking discoveries. ( and even those who arnt) It is important that while we are making all of these discoveries that are helping people and changing the world, that we are not creating so much waste, and poising our world in the process. Rileytc197 (talk) 14:47, 30 July 2015 (EDT)
  • The biochemists will be happy! This type of thing is big business now, and although it won't have the enormous impact you might see from a new type of gasoline, this technology is already out there and being used for full scale production. It's amazing how often something is made a certain way because "that's how it's made"; once someone takes the time to design a greener pathway they may make incredible improvements, and make the process cheaper into the bargain. Martin A. Walker (talk) 15:32, 31 July 2015 (EDT)
  • I personally love this innovation, as I have performed various PCR procedures, and have probably used around half a liter of deoxynucleotide triphosphates (dNTPs), which are the “reagents” (the "building blocks" for the growing chains of DNA) that they have improved upon. A reduction of 65% of the hazardous waste generated is phenomenal, especially considering how ubiquitous and pertinent the polymerase chain reaction is (e.g. it is used in forensics, site-directed mutagenesis, diagnosing diseases, and countless other intriguing applications). Alexanderlevitz (talk) 23:58, 31 July 2015 (EDT)

Jasmine Ruiz

Jillian Visser

Algenol is a global, industrial biotechnology company that is commercializing its patented algae technology platform for production of ethanol and other biofuels. The Company’s technology is a unique two-step process that first produces ethanol directly from the algae and then converts the spent algae biomass to biodiesel, gasoline and jet fuel. It is the only renewable fuel production process that can convert more than 85% of its CO2 feedstock into the four most important fuels. Algenol exemplifies green chemistry because it follows the principles of green chemistry. Ethanol, used in gas pumps across the country, is typically made from the fermentation of sugars produced by plants such as corn and sugar cane. But through the innovation of converting algae into a “green crude”, Algenol has successfully developed a fossil fuel replacement with yields 20 times greater than that of corn. Algenol is a unique platform by which renewable resources are used to produce biofuels and ethanol in an environmentally friendly way. "The company captures, recycles and utilizes CO2. Its pathway reduces Green House Gas Emissions by 69% compared to gasoline according to the official EPA pathway approval. A single 2,000 acre commercial Algenol module is the equivalent to planting 40-million trees or removing 36-thousand cars from the road!" One of the limitations of Algenol is that it needs to be grown in a warmer climate where the sun shines most of the day all year round. Areas like Florida and California are prime locations for the product to be grown. Here is a link that describes a little bit more about the process: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEg2HmxedDw&list=PL7Moaj2PKS929I8rNRX5cWrsjeM3yh6hJ

  • Yes, this is very nice technology. We're already using bioethanol in large quantities in gasoline, but it's not really sustainable at the moment. Switching to the Algenol product would make it sustainable. Also, see Triston's post above. Martin A. Walker (talk) 15:24, 31 July 2015 (EDT)

Any general comments