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 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.

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?

• I think that the lesson that is most apparent, at least from my particular perspective, and in considering both Hill as well as the Unit 2 & 3 ppt. which focus on the ideas of sustainability and energy, is that where energy is not destroyed only dissipated, and in utilizing various technological advancements, that it is entirely possible to re-direct the flow of dissipated energy such that we are constantly redistributing and reabsorbing rather than discharging it. For instance, and in reference to our scenario involving ACME Chemical, much of the waste produced by plants like ACME is redirected or reused. I think that if we consider energy in the same way, much like the way in which energy is contained in and flows from an ocean wave, we can actualize a more efficient management of the energy produced through renewable rather than non-renewable resources thereby decreasing the negative impact on the ecosystem.Haw7thorne (talk) 21:44, 16 July 2013 (EDT)Haw7thorne (talk)

• The lessons we can learn from both the conservation of mass and the conservation of energy laws are ones that can be applied to sustainability and the use and productivity of the materials we use. In relationship to the conservation of mass we can apply this to sustainability by understanding that what mass we start out with is the same mass that we will end up with after the reaction. Mass cannot be created nor destroyed and we can't aim for creating a reaction that produces less waste or a reaction that produces more product. We must though aim for a reaction that gives us the best percent yield of the product we are searching for, with minimum to no harmful waste at all. With the conservation of energy, which states that whatever energy you put into a system you will get in return, we should again shoot for using less energy than we need to to get what we need out of it. If there was a way to recycle the energy put out from a reaction to again power the initial reaction we could have an endless cycle of energy formation. This is why renewable resources are so valuable. Slomasa192 (talk) 12:40, 17 July 2013 (EDT)

• The law of conservation of energy shows the potential of naturally occuring energy. For example, the global resource of solar energy creates a renewable resource that can not be destroyed. This energy can be used for endless daily activities and would be replacing energy from non renewable resources. Although energy is never destroyed, the waste it produces when burnt is not usable and hurts the environment while waste from solar energy does not do this. The supply of solar energy is also inexhaustible and readily available in most circumstances. (Magenta (talk) 13:41, 17 July 2013 (EDT))

Limitations

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

• Science has clearly shown itself to be invaluable to not only sustaining, but improving the quality of human life. The development and utilization of crop rotation and Jethro Tull's (no, not the band) seed drill in England beget the Agricultural Revolution in that country; as well as the concurrent surge in population needed to set the ground work for the Industrial Revolution which followed. From Hypocrites rational medicine, and Eli Whitney's cotton gin, to Edison's incandescent light bulb, Gutenberg's printing press, Edward Jenner's vaccination method for smallpox, Lister's antiseptic surgery, Flemming's discovery of penicillin, and Norman Borlaug's dwarf wheat it is impossible to deny that science (and by extension, technology) has not only extended the life expectancy of our species, but improved the conditions for living for billions, perhaps even trillions of human beings all over the planet. However, while science has proven itself to be the progenitor of a veritable explosion of advancement in technology, medicine, agriculture and industry it has very definite limitations in being altogether unable to account for what it has not yet experienced and therefore what it cannot possibly foresee or know. That is to say, while the development of antibiotics like amoxicillin for instance have served to alleviate and counter the symptoms of various bacterial infections, some common bacteria are now beginning to develop a resistance to many of what had been hailed as wonder drugs in their infancy. And soon many of those bacterial infections which we had been happy to relegate to a dark time long past will have made a horrifying resurgence. As a result, where it had been the practice of medical professionals to simply prescribe an antibiotic, they are in response now advocating better hygiene and infection control rather than simply prescribing or over-prescribing things like penicillin. So there are some very definite limitations to scientific progress, but they limitations which have at the same time generated new and more efficient methods for addressing infection and disease for example.Haw7thorne (talk) 22:50, 16 July 2013 (EDT)

• As of right now it is tough to see is there are any limitations to the way science can be valuable to the environment. Science is ever changing, in every field, and everyday new things are being discovered and new techniques are being pioneered to improve man kinds relationship with the environment. There is so much that we as human beings and as collaborators with the environment still have to learn and everyday is a new and important challenge. I do though on the other hand have questions about how modern man is affecting science and how history has changed itself over time, especially the last 50 or 60 years. One theory I have come to ponder lately, due in part to my Microbiology class with Dr. Plague, is that maybe our innovation in the field of medicine and technology has created a scenario where there will never be any limitations. Now I know this idea may be crazy and a little off the topic of the but I feel that we, human beings, are an essential part of this. We had learned about the Red Queen hypothesis and how humans are in a "race" against pathogens to keep up with their ever evolving nature. Now my hypothesis is that with this race we as humans have stunted our evolution, that we are no longer allowing the environment and our pathogenic counterparts to "weed" out the least adapted organisms. This has then allowed the pathogens to not be sufficient in the current state they are in and pushes them to evolve faster than us. Since we strive to live longer and increase the quality of life we have more people on the planet which in turn means we are using our resources faster than we expected. If we look at population curves of the world over the last 12,000 years we see that at some point there was a major explosion of population growth sometime in the early 20th century. This could be linked to Fleming's discovery of Penicillin in 1928. With this discovery man has strived to determine the cure for everything they can, but has this determination led to us ultimately playing god and changing evolution and the environment as a whole? With this in mind and the Red Queen Hypothesis there will never be any limitations to studying the environment because we are constantly changing what the environment is and will become. Slomasa192 (talk) 13:07, 17 July 2013 (EDT)

• Science is an ever expanding and changing field and although this has countless benefits it also produces some limitations. The processes that science helps create to benefit the environment can become very costly. This is because scientists are working on such new techniques and processes that there is no common production of these items. The materials necessary may be costly to make, and the processes may be very time consuming or difficult to learn. Although there is a lot of potential for these newer options it is going to take a lot of initial time and money to implement any changes that would help the environment. Also, scientists do not have the power to make any changes in global processes. Even if they create a novel way of using energy and decreasing pollution, there are many political hoops to jump through to make any sort of changes to use their new techniques. (Magenta (talk) 13:53, 17 July 2013 (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?

• One of the biggest issues facing our species today, aside from a marked decrease in the availability and useability of resources like water (my particular passion), is an ever increasing need for a source of relatively clean, efficient and affordable energy. In that our main source of energy is now petroleum (in China it is shockingly still coal), and which according to geologist M. King Hubbert (Hubbert Curve/Peak Oil), as well as others, is quickly approaching the point where we will simply run out of this incredibly efficient but non-renewable resource, we need to begin investing in other, if not renewable, then at least more plentiful and sustainable energy resources. "There are an estimated 1.3 trillion barrels of proven oil reserve left in the world’s major fields, which at present rates of consumption will be sufficient to last 40 years. By 2040, production levels may be down to 15 million barrels per day – around 20% of what we currently consume" (http://www.imeche.org/knowledge/themes/energy/energy-supply/fossil-energy/when-will-oil-run-out). Therefore, if I had 50 billion dollars I would use that money to invest in research geared toward the development of nuclear fusion technology. Nuclear fusion is a process by which we would be able to utilize a particular isotope known as Helium-3, or He-3, which while scarce and expensive here on planet Earth is plentiful on the surface of the moon. "Helium-3 is a light, non-radioactive isotope of helium with two protons and one neutron [which is] embedded in the upper layer of regolith by the solar wind over billions of years"(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium-3). Not only is nuclear fusion "a more sustainable way to generate nuclear energy, utilizing He-3 it produces less radioactive waste" (http://www.wired.com/science/space/news/2006/12/72276?currentPage=all) than either plutonium or radium. In fact, some estimates claim that there is enough He-3 on the moon to generate power for more than a thousand years. This technology however, in that it is generally seen as 'pie in the sky', and/or as currently irrelevant, is still at the very least fifty years away, and likely would cost far more than 50 billion dollars to actualize.Haw7thorne (talk) 23:49, 16 July 2013 (EDT)