|
|
| 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, 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. | + | This discussion is based on discussing three questions, and it is set to take place on the wiki, over the next few days (until midnight on Wednesday, 17th July). Please leave one original answer to each question on the page below, then also a total of two comments in response to (and under) the comments by other students. Be sure to start your text with a *, and sign your responses with four tilde marks at the end. |
| − | [[Category:Chemistry 321 discussions]]
| |
| | | | |
| | ==Laws of conservation of matter and energy== | | ==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?''' | | 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. [[User:HKopelson|HKopelson]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:Stewarjm192|Stewarjm192]] ([[User talk:Stewarjm192|talk]]) 13:55, 16 July 2012 (EDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | *Since energy can not be created nor destroyed, this means that when we do think we get rid of something... that energy that it had still exists. Since the energy still exists, just in a different form, it has a different impact on our environment. This is why we have to be careful when burning certain products, like certain kinds of cardboard. Even though we are burning it, and getting rid of the cardboard... the chemicals that are released when burning the cardboard are released into the air and may have a detrimental effect on our environment. amannme192[[User:Amannme192|Amannme192]] ([[User talk:Amannme192|talk]]) 15:57, 16 July 2012 (EDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | *When we drive a car, burn wood to heat our homes, turn on any electric appliance, etc, we are always using energy. Most of us currently release more energy than we use. We cannot get rid of energy no matter what we do, since energy cannot be destroyed nor created. There is no way for us to use technology without releasing some form of energy. People need to find ways to limit their energy output, such as switching to solar power in their homes and using energy-efficient light bulbs. New technologies need to be found to replace the current ones that use too much energy and to help reduce the amount of harm to our environment. [[User:AndrewSears|AndrewSears]] ([[User talk:AndrewSears|talk]]) 18:55, 16 July 2012 (EDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | *the energy and matter we use is not destroyed or removed. Therefore we need to learn how to harness these "used" resources. We need to become more aware of our actions, driving our cars, disposing of garbage, burning material, and building new structures. There are ways to limit our energy output, such as solar power, wind power, energy efficient appliances, and green products. The problem is that the cost of these products tends to be considerably more expensive then the old standard. In the long run of course they pay off, but do people think of the long term? For example energy efficient light bulbs, they are at least 3x more expensive then the regular bulbs, but they last 7 to 10 years. I think when I replaced all of the light bulbs in my house it cost about 40$. My boyfriend and I were just looking at solar powered generators. It would run our entire house, but they cost 11,00$, which is a lot of money to fork out! We burn wood in the winter, all the trees cut for our supply are dead trees, which is all I allow to be cut. We try to use the wood stove to cook as well, but there are limitations to that. But we try to reuse some of that energy produced![[User:Emitch|Emitch]] ([[User talk:Emitch|talk]]) 20:25, 16 July 2012 (EDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | *According to the first law of thermodynamics, energy cannot neither be created or destroyed, only transferred. In a coal-fired power plant, the coal is burned and the energy is transferred into electricity, which is sent to the lights in your house, while a solar panel will take energy from the sun, and transfer it into electricity. The difference between these two processes is that the coal will be burned up and become useless to anyone. While matter may not be destroyed, resources such as coal and oil are not infinite. We need to find sources of energy that can be continually replenished such as a wind farm, because the planet is not likely to run out of wind in the near future.[[User:SamRussell|SamRussell]] ([[User talk:SamRussell|talk]])
| |
| | | | |
| | ==Limitations== | | ==Limitations== |
| | '''Science is clearly valuable when studying the environment. What do you perceive as the limitations of science in this context?''' | | '''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 ''creating''a solution, but isn't one itself.[[User:HKopelson|HKopelson]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:Stewarjm192|Stewarjm192]] ([[User talk: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. amannme192[[User:Amannme192|Amannme192]] ([[User talk:Amannme192|talk]]) 15:37, 16 July 2012 (EDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | *Science helped Western civilization climb out of the Dark Ages and into the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. The rise of new ideas and discoveries have all led to the technology we use today, and thus to the rise of modern society. We now understand how the ecosystem and the environment, but we have not used science to figure out how to preserve it yet. Some of our methods of studying the environment, such as using lab animals to test new medicines, are also harmful to the environment. Science can be a good way to figure out ways to preserve the environment if we find new methods of studying it. [[User:AndrewSears|AndrewSears]] ([[User talk:AndrewSears|talk]]) 19:21, 16 July 2012 (EDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | * We have made leaps and bounds in discovery through science. We understand solar energy, decomposition, and bio-fuels, which we have re-harnessed to reuse that energy produced. But at what cost? How many millions of dollars were spent in this exploration, how much trial and error was needed to get this far, how much waste was produced. Science exploration has become more environmentally friendly, There are fewer and fewer animal testing facilities. We have started to figure out how to preserve it, but its the transformation that needs to happen that is going to be a long process. Of course there is more discoveries and applications that need to be produced before we can truly start to sustain our Earth.[[User:Emitch|Emitch]] ([[User talk:Emitch|talk]]) 20:33, 16 July 2012 (EDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | *Science is continually giving us a better grasp on how the universe and all the complex systems inside of it work. It is thanks to science that we understand the environment of the planet, and what we must do to keep it the way it is. Science is also necessary in developing sustainable technology and practices. The limitations of science are that it may be able to discover the problems such as climate change, but knowing is half the battle, and it will take the people and the government working together in order to solve them.[[User:SamRussell|SamRussell]] ([[User talk:SamRussell|talk]])
| |
| | | | |
| | ==Wonder tech== | | ==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 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.[[User:HKopelson|HKopelson]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:Stewarjm192|Stewarjm192]] ([[User talk:Stewarjm192|talk]]) 13:50, 16 July 2012 (EDT)
| |
| | | | |
| − | * If I had $50 billion to spend on a new technology I would use it to form some sort of technology that can power energy for transportation and homes. I would try to come up with a different fuel source for both vehicles that would help people get to and from places (since we have all become so dependent on driving to and from places, especially those of us who live in the country!), but I wouldn't just want people who drive to benefit; I would also try to come up with something that would be cost efficient and better for the environment to fuel the homes. We all use tons of technology in our houses, and unfortunately we have come to the point where a lot of us couldn't live without it.. as sad as it is, it is true. Whether it is coming up with a new form of solar panels that are cheaper (so more people could afford), or form of energy that uses water to help give the house the energy it needs to supply these items. I would spend money on different forms of testing, researching (so its both cost efficient and environmentally friendly), and to have people test my product. amannme192[[User:Amannme192|Amannme192]] ([[User talk:Amannme192|talk]]) 15:48, 16 July 2012 (EDT)
| + | [[Category:Chemistry 321 discussions]] |
| − | | |
| − | *If I suddenly had $50 billion to spend on developing a new technology, I would come up with a way to use wind energy as a way to power our homes. Wind energy is a natural and renewable resource, with minimal emissions. I would have new wind farms built all over the country so that as many people as possible could have access to this new technology. Since wind is always blowing in some part of the country, these farms would be able to provide electricity to any home, even if the wind is not blowing at that specific location. While a lot of gas emissions would be put into the atmosphere transporting the materials needed to build these wind farms, in the long run it would be cheaper and more energy efficient than oil and coal, and way better for the environment. I would also spend money on advertising to try and convince people to switch from coal and oil-based electricity and heating to wind power, With many people stuck in their ways and stubborn, this would be the hardest part of all, but with enough time I think we'd get many more people switching over to wind powered homes. [[User:AndrewSears|AndrewSears]] ([[User talk:AndrewSears|talk]]) 19:31, 16 July 2012 (EDT)
| |
| − | | |
| − | * I would like to use some of that money providing grants for people to be able to obtain the renewable energy that is available today, like solar powered generators, and wind mills. The cost of the switch to these resources is very high, and I believe that is why more people are making the change. But I also would like to investigate the ethanol that is produced at landfills, during the decomp process. They have started to harness this at the landfill in Rhodmen, up near Watertown. In this was we could try to reuse some of the energy produced through all of our waste, and try to get something positive out of it.[[User:Emitch|Emitch]] ([[User talk:Emitch|talk]]) 20:42, 16 July 2012 (EDT)
| |
| − | | |
| − | * If I had 50 billion dollars to spend on developing new technology, I wouldn't just spend it all on one thing but on a variety of different sustainable technologies. I would spend $10 billion each on developing better solar panels and wind mills that would be cheaper to install and more efficient. I would invest $5 billion into more sustainable farming and meat production methods since our meat and agriculture industry heavily pollutes the environment and contributes to greenhouse gas emissions. I would invest $10 billion into creating a faster and more efficient public transportation system so people wouldn't have to drive so often, and could travel the country without flying, reducing C02 levels. I would then invest the last $15 hydrogen fuel cells, and whatever else could be used to replace oil and gasoline. I believe that we need to employ a variety of solutions for creating a sustainable society.[[User:SamRussell|SamRussell]] ([[User talk:SamRussell|talk]])
| |
| − | | |
| − | * If I had 50 billion dollars to spend on emerging environmental technologies I would spend 20 million on more research and development towards ocean thermal energy conversion,our oceans are the biggest solar collectors on this planet converting the thermal energy contained in the ocean and turning it into electricity seems like it has a lot of realistic potential for generating sustainable energy, I would spend another 20 billion on revamping city rooftops to gardens in major cities not only is this a viable way to grow your own food utilizing unused space in an urban setting but the plants take in CO2 and give off oxygen helping create a little less CO2 in the atmosphere this is not a very high tech solution but if more money could be given to help renovate more and more rooftops it has potential to make a big difference. I would spend the other 10 billion dollars on more research and development towards bioremediation which uses microbes and plants to clean up contaminated areas (nitrates for example) the EPA has already used this to cleanup some contaminated places. [[User:Ashley|Ashley]] ([[User talk:Ashley|talk]]) 13:16, 17 July 2012 (EDT)
| |
