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. You have until midnight on Wednesday, 15th July to post your initial direct answer to each of the questions. Then, by Friday, 17th July, you should post at least 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?

• From the Law of Conservation of mass and energy, we must consider several things when discussing global resources. In order to conserve mass and energy on a global scale, we must implement and use renewable resources that we have on hand. For example, we have seen that wind mills and wind turbines are a great source for creating energy at low cost. It may be costly to make a wind turbine and implement this into a certain location, but it will undoubtedly save money in the long term. Additionally, we must not use more energy than we have have and what we can make. We are expending our resources at a rapid rate, and it is necessary to scale back on a global scale, in order for our resources, land, and capital to last decades and centuries into the future.LeannaCollard (talk) 20:17, 13 July 2015 (EDT)

• Yes, we're expending resources of stored solar energy, and once they're gone it will take millions of years to replace; the wind power is taking the energy at the time it's generated from the sun, without depleting any stored energy.Martin A. Walker (talk) 13:49, 16 July 2015 (EDT)

• how do you think we could cut back on a global scale? Would this change occur at a fast rate or do you think our current efforts are suitable enough? Rodrigaf197 (talk) 16:46, 17 July 2015 (EDT)

• Although energy and matter can neither be created nor destroyed, it is imperative that we rationally and respectfully manage global energy and material resources. This is due to the fact that there are many irreversible reactions, such as the combustion of gasoline in an automobile. The combustion of the chemical energy from the hydrocarbon is converted into mechanical energy (moving the car), and consequently produces water and carbon dioxide (as the mass of the reactants must equal that of the products). However, going from the products (CO2 and H2O) back to the reactants (hydrocarbon and oxygen) is not feasible. Thus, this example highlights the dire need to appropriately conserve global resources, and to adequately focus on the effectuation and development of more renewable and sustainable technologies (and behaviors conducive to the success of future generations). Alexanderlevitz (talk) 17:03, 15 July 2015 (EDT)

• You're right - it is in effect irreversible. Human beings aren't so easily "trained", though! Certainly we need to educate people and foster the good choices, but we need also to ensure that society as a whole doesn't keep using fossil fuels; that could involve a combination of regulation, incentives and technology, as well as international agreement.Martin A. Walker (talk) 13:49, 16 July 2015 (EDT)

• If we look at the conservation of mass and conservation of energy we can learn a few things when considering global resources of mass and energy. Due to the conservation of energy and mass we know that these things are limited and cannot created more.therefore we must actively conserve the resources that we have present on earth, because even though these things cannot be destroyed sometimes they cannot be changed back into something that we see as useful to us either. once this happens we are such with the waste that we do not want, and less of the product that we had started with. This also shows us that we need to use processes that have a high efficiency and high yield when considering how to create or make different products. Finally we can also learn that there is only so much energy available, and finding the greenest most effective way to harness this energy will make it so that we make less impact on our environment and that the world will still be around for future generations.Rileytc197 (talk) 17:51, 15 July 2015 (EDT)

• Yes - it's a good idea to try and use what we have more efficiently! I always recall my chem professor saying (in 1980 or so, when I had a whole eight-lecture class on petroleum chemistry) that it was such a waste just to burn petroleum, when it's such a wonderful source of useful chemicals!Martin A. Walker (talk) 13:49, 16 July 2015 (EDT)

• Conservation of mass and conservation of energy are not serious issues for our planet. In order for conservation of mass to be an issue, more mass would have to escape the atmosphere, such as spacecraft,than enters the atmosphere, such as colliding comets and meteorites. For Conservation of energy to be an issue, we would have to be radiating more energy out into space than we are taking in from it, predominantly from the sun. What we do have to worry about, is the makeup of that mass. The elements that mass is made up of, the molecules those elements are organized into, and their arraggement in the core, crust, and atmosphere of the planet.Gallaggc196 (talk) 20:23, 15 July 2015 (EDT)

• A good point to raise! You're absolutely right about conservation of total mass, and that it's what elements make up that mass that is important. We're not running out of mass, but we might conceivably run out of affordable sources of (say) platinum or niobium. (The law does in fact imply that for chemical processes; you can't process 1 tonne of niobium from rocks and get 2 tonnes of niobium out of it!) However, on energy I think you're avoiding a key point; we as a species use up a lot of energy - way beyond what we get just from food - to stay warm/cool, for transportation, industry, agriculture, etc. What matters here is the exergy (see Hill). Energy can do work when it's in petroleum, or solar radiation (if we have solar panels), but once we burn our gasoline it becomes low grade heat which can no longer be used - it just warms the planet a little. The Second Law of Thermodynamics gets in the way! To be sustainable, we ultimately are limited to the amount of energy we can harness from the Sun/Moon and from the heat inside the Earth, or from nuclear power, with the Sun being the major source. See Rodrigaf197's post below - she puts it beautifully! Martin A. Walker (talk) 13:49, 16 July 2015 (EDT)

• Knowing that mass and energy can neither be created nor destroyed, we should learn to do the same with our resources. We should make sure that our resources are being reused and remade into different things instead of just trashing them and letting them slowly rot away and harm the environment. We need to become well informed about how to reuse and repurpose what we think is garbage. If people only knew how long it took for some our garbage to degrade, I believe we wouldn’t throw so much of it in the trash. Ruizja196 (talk) 23:10, 15 July 2015 (EDT)

• Nice idea to focus on reuse/repurpose (and recycling, too, I'd say). - although the Earth does have huge amounts of mass in general, the materials we use are often very specific, and they contain large amounts of exergy. Reuse, etc. ensures frugal use of the natural capital we have in both matter and energy.Martin A. Walker (talk) 13:49, 16 July 2015 (EDT)

• I agree with this statement that it is very important that as humans we are consciously aware of our decisions in regards to our resources and being responsibile with them. I believe that as habitants of Earth, we should be responsibility recycling every opportunity that we have. Additionally, there are many materials that we can reuse that such as plastic, certain metals, paper, and many more. I think it is also important that we educate members of society about how long it takes materials to break down. Some materials may not even break down in our lifetime so it is important that people know the significance of their actions and the consequences that arise.

LeannaCollard (talk) 09:17, 16 July 2015 (EDT)

• When looking at the laws of thermodynamics it is important to understand how they apply to our planet and they help explain how life is able to sustain itself. The first law tells us that energy is conserved therefore the amount in the universe is constant, so this means it can only transform from one form to another. This helps us understand that energy cannot be consumed, rather it is quantized and distributed into different microstates which can be seen as vibrational, rotational, and translational motion within molecules. This brings us to the second law which states that spontaneous processes happen in one direction and are accompanied by an increase in entropy, which can be seen as energy being distributed in more ways and thus occupying many more smaller quantum states. This applies to our planet in that we are open systems which allows for the movement of energy and matter thus counteracting the spontaneity and entropy increase. We must use our resources in a way that will contain stored energy and prevent decay since they are not in equilibrium. In doing so we decreased the entropy of the object but increase the entropy in the environment. These laws can help us understand how to develop sustainable systems that minimize the harm on the environment. Rodrigaf197 (talk) 23:43, 15 July 2015 (EDT)

• Although this answer focuses more generally on the thermodynamics (esp. the 2nd law) rather than just the conservation of mass-energy, this is an extremely perceptive and insightful post! You are dead on. Maybe next year I'll ask more about the second law? Well done! Martin A. Walker (talk) 13:49, 16 July 2015 (EDT)

• The Law of conservation of matter and energy, states that the total amount of energy in the universe is constant, which means that all of the energy has to end up somewhere, either in the original form or in a different form. We can use this knowledge to determine the energy efficiency of the system. Many environmental problems are associated with burning fossil fuels for energy. The combustion reaction of a fossil fuel with oxygen releases water, carbon dioxide, and any impurities contained in the resource into the environment. Humans have used most of the fossil fuel reserves over the past 200 years. While we are still using up fossil fuels we have also started to look towards many types of renewable resources. Humans have learned to take advantage these different forms of renewable resources, including: solar power, hydropower, wind power, and geothermal energy. Visserjr199 (talk) 16:10, 16 July 2015 (EDT)

Limitations

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

• Science is what we believe to be true here and now. We have learned over decades and centuries that was once believed as true, certainly may not be. The limitation to science in this context is that what we believe to be accurate and true today, may not be accurate and true fifty years from now. There will be great advancements in technology that may enhance our belief or prove it to be false all together. It is naive of us to say that what we believe is 100% true and always will be. The great thing about science is that it is a process and it is always evolving. LeannaCollard (talk) 20:17, 13 July 2015 (EDT)

I think science is more than just a belief, which makes it sound like anyone can believe what they like. You can't design technology - say a cellphone - if you don't accept the current theories; if you apply hundreds of pieces of our current scientific knowledge together, the cellphone works, and is an amazing piece of technology. It is certainly true, though, that many of our current theories will need to be revised as time goes on. That can be a strength - the comparative openness of scientists to accept change, based on experiments and data. It is also true that often scientists don't know things as facts - e.g., what color Tyrannosaurus skin was - but they often speculate based on limited knowledge and their hypotheses (which are important) are then presented as "fact" in books. I find it hard to accept, though, that we will decide in the future that water is no longer one oxygen bonded to two hydrogens!Martin A. Walker (talk) 23:38, 16 July 2015 (EDT)

• When it comes to science and the environment there are a few limitations that are present. The main limitation that is present is the fact that science is based on what is know at the time, if the information is incorrect or not fully there than we cannot base a correct assumption on that science. Also the fact that nowadays with the internet and all of the media that we have false science or science that has been changed to make look a certain way is also a big thing. this means that some people who are honest will see the correlation in the data about the environment, while those being paid to say otherwise falsify data or change it to support what they want. Rileytc197 (talk) 19:46, 15 July 2015 (EDT)

Science does operate in society, and society can have powerful factions that may not like some conclusions that scientists come to - for example, the church had a hard time accepting that the Earth went round the Sun. So this type of misinformation is nothing new, though the postmodernist viewpoint we often hear today likes to say that "my view of the science is as equally valid as yours." It is not, if you're claiming that the formula for water is HO (as Dalton believed) rather than H₂O. Ultimately, science is based on reason, logic, experimental data and prediction, and as long as the scientific community builds on that it remains strong. However, there are many areas - such as climate and biology, two areas experiencing controversy - where it is almost impossible to conclusively prove that climate change is man-made, say; even though there is very strong evidence to suggest it is, there is a real (but I would say very small) possibility that climate change has another cause, or is perhaps not even happening at all. What a scientist should do in such circumstances is use the most reasonable hypothesis and work with that - but of cause the devil lies in that word "reasonable"! It should mean that the weight of experimental data support it, but all of us can have beliefs that can make us evaluate the evidence differently.Martin A. Walker (talk) 23:38, 16 July 2015 (EDT)

• The limitations of science in this context revolve around human knowledge and the limits of the physical world. Many of our problems can be overcome by technology. Human life was improved drastically by the industrial revolution and many of the things that have come from it and come after it. Factories and the machines inside them grew economies by creating more products at higher quality and consistency while also doing it more quickly and with greater frequency. Information technologies allowed for more rapid and reliable transmission of data and information, connecting the now wealthy world like it never had been before. Now as we have seen the effects our progress is having on our home we have turned our attention to saving it. Green technologies have emerged in the form of solar power, wind power, geothermal power, and to an extent, nuclear power. With greater application of these technologies and more research to improve their efficiency, we can significantly reduce the negative impact we have on the planet. However, everything comes back to the science and science is dependent on one thing, data. We need testable, comprehensible, data. The amount of data we have and and the amount of that we can use is dependent on how much relevant data exists ultimately, but more realistically it is dependent on our ability to gather and analyze it. As this improves, technology will improve with it, and devices such as solar panels and wind turbines will improve as well. The other limit, the physical world, is composed of things such as the amount of energy emited by the sun, the ammount of space on the earth that can be covered in solar panels, the speed of the wind, and the total number of turbines that can be placed on the planets surface. While human knowledge can be improved, the limits of the physical world cannot, so while human knowledge is a "soft limit" on science, the limits of the physical world are a "hard limit".Gallaggc196 (talk) 21:37, 15 July 2015 (EDT)

A very interesting post, and your closing sentence is beautifully written! Well done! One thing the information revolution & internet have allowed us to do is to (a) handle orders of magnitude more data at a time, and (b) share those data across the world, so we can put things together in new ways. We've barely begun to reap the benefits of that in our science. Of course, science and technology can both be used for harmful purposes as well; the industrial revolution also produced the carnage of modern wars, and WW1 in particular IMHO. We need to make sure the technology serves us well. Thanks, Martin A. Walker (talk) 23:38, 16 July 2015 (EDT)

• Understanding the environment through the scientific process does have some inherent limitations. For example, there can be a number of confounding factors that make obtaining data, and a subsequent conclusion difficult or impossible. The complexity and breadth of the environment also complicates our ability to gain a comprehensive understanding of the environment. However, as technology continues to advance so will our capacity to comprehend and discover more about our environment. Furthermore, even if our technological growth were to cease we would still continue to ascertain more about our environment, as we have not been studying the environment and our impact on it for much time at all (vis-à-vis the amount of time in the Anthropocene, which is arguably at least a few thousand years). Thus, I feel that much of our current limitations in understanding can be attributed to our short temporal relationship with discovering the many intricacies of our environment, as well as the tools (technology) with which we do so, both of which will improve with time. Alexanderlevitz (talk) 22:07, 15 July 2015 (EDT)

Yes - your points are very apposite. The Earth's environment is far too complex for us to be able to properly understand, and it may be true that we can never predict what it will do with perfect accuracy, and right now we can't even be sure whether it will rain in Potsdam tomorrow! Martin A. Walker (talk) 23:38, 16 July 2015 (EDT)

• Science is most definitely needed in studying the environment but we need to look into ways to stop or slow down the amount of harm we are still causing. With science we need to find more effective ways of cleaning up the garbage we have already polluted our environment with, not only studying the effects it already has created. Another limitation of science is that the harm we are doing to our environment is not only on a scientific level, but on a social level as well. Meaning we have to study the social aspect of how we are globally interacting with the environment in order to better understand ways to fix it. Ruizja196 (talk) 23:11, 15 July 2015 (EDT)

I believe as scientists, or well educated people with a science background, we should take on a greater responsibility in educating others about reusable resources, recycling, and the consequences of our actions. If we do not educate others on the effects of our actions on the plant, who will? It is also our responsibility as a developed, first world nation to educate other countries and other people of less developed societies to educate them about the resources and proper ways of storage and disposal. I believe there should be a greater discussion about all of these issues and a movement needs to be created in order for progress to occur.

LeannaCollard (talk) 09:19, 16 July 2015 (EDT)

• Science is the practice of conducting experiments in order to falsify theories, in doing so it allows us to form hypotheses and prove them right or wrong by using the scientific method. The limitations of science are that data are easy to manipulate and if not properly understood wrongful claims can be extrapolated. Many people are afraid of science and do not properly understand how it can help us advance our technology and our overall well-being. For instance I learnt in a research methods class that many people will claim that correlational data is causal however this is false. We learnt that there was a correlation between butter consumption and the divorce rates in Maine, but this obviously does not mean that eating more butter will cause you to get divorced. There are many third variables that need to be controlled or held constant in order to increase the validity or reliability of a study. If the data can be reproduced than theories are believed to be more true based on the scientific method however increases in technology may help gather more accurate results. This may be a problem when studying the environment because some data from the past was not collected, but researchers have been working hard to take proper measurements for better use in the future. Rodrigaf197 (talk) 23:53, 15 July 2015 (EDT)

• The limitations of science when it comes to the environment are rooted in the limitations of the technology at a given time. For example, our ability to forecast weather has improved and evolved greatly over the past 20 years due to the use of satellites, electronic buoys in the oceans, dopplers, and computer models. As these technologies improve, the limitations may decrease but it will take time for the technology to evolve into what we need to use it for. Knowledge that is gained from the technology that we use will help us in developing further technologies that can harness the resources we may need to support a sustainable environment. For example, the use of pesticides by agricultural companies that have developed chemicals to increase crop production, have over time proven to have negative effects on the environment. As a consequence, in recent times, there has been more research done to create a more organic, environment-friendly chemical to do the same job without the negative side effects. Visserjr199 (talk) 16:55, 16 July 2015 (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 have $50 billion to spend on developing some new technology, I would allocate the money in many different areas. Of course I would spend a great deal of this money on research. This research would be new technologies and advancements that kept people living longer lives. Although this proposes the issue of people living longer and depleting more resources on this Earth, I would still choose to allocate my money to healthcare and technological advancements in this sector of science. This could be in heart transplants and better working devices of the heart, such as advancements to pacemakers and other cardiovascular technologies. I would also allocate some of this money to neurological technological devices to improve the lives of those who have brain abnormalities and neurological disorders. Overall, I would want to invest my money that will improve the quality of life to those with health care issues.LeannaCollard (talk) 20:22, 13 July 2015 (EDT)

• If I had a $50 billion budget to develop a new technology I would attempt to create a new range of energy-producing construction materials that will be utilized for the façades of all types of buildings. For example, I would try to create both synthetic wood (in order to avoid deforestation) and bricks that have a photovoltaic laminate (similar to the new fully transparent solar concentrator, i.e. solar panel window). This laminate would preserve the aesthetic appeal of either option (brick or faux wood), and would allow the entire exterior of the house to generate energy (as opposed to being limited to rooftops). If I still had money leftover (after what is hopefully a success) I would attempt to make wind energy more accessible to homeowners, especially those in cities, as well as utilizing space that is normally unused. For example, in Brooklyn there are numerous brownstones and buildings that have multiple chimneys that are no longer in use, thus I would figure out a way to house the stem of the wind turbine in the chimney, thereby saving space on the roof (for solar panels or a green roof), and potentially making the wiring of the system to the house less complicated. Alexanderlevitz (talk) 18:08, 15 July 2015 (EDT)

• If i had $50 billion to help develop a new technology I would definitely choose solar energy and wave energy, theses two are actually my personal favorites (with geothermal in close 3rd). I would use this money to develop solar panels that can use more of the suns energy, and use it more efficiently. there is so much energy that is generated form the sun if were were able to finally develop a solar panel that can capture say 40%o of the energy that hits it and use it for electricity. With wave energy I would also like to invest money into developing it and making this form of energy one that is actually well known since not many people know about it. Finally I would also spent the money on creating wave energy farms in the seas and use this power to help supply power to the places that need it. Rileytc197 (talk) 20:19, 15 July 2015 (EDT)

I have always been a fan of wave energy too, it is unfortunate that we haven't done more to harness the immense energy of the oceans. However, I do realize that it is quite difficult to produce wave turbines that can withstand the corrosive nature of saltwater, as well as ensuring there is no ecological impact. I also agree that photovoltaic cells need much improvement, but I am hopeful that graphene will bolster solar cells (as well as other methods, such as utilizing genetically modified bacteriophages). Alexanderlevitz (talk) 19:14, 17 July 2015 (EDT)

• I would spend the money into research regarding the efficiency of existing renewable energy technologies. For example, while solar panels are getting better, they are still not capable of converting nearly as much of the light that hits them into electrical energy as we would like. The more efficient they become, the more power you can get per square foot of panel, the cheaper it becomes to produce energy this way, and the cheaper it becomes the more realistic it becomes as an alternative for all fossil fuel use.Gallaggc196 (talk) 21:51, 15 July 2015 (EDT)

• If a $50 billion investment opportunity presented itself I would split it evenly into two pollution preventative operations. The first would be Solar Roadways, as I believe their are the future of American roadways and parking lots. These new prototypes of solar roadway panels can be installed and if need be single panels can be replaced for simple maintenance. LED lights and heaters are installed to keep snow off the panels so lights are visible, this would prevent many car accidents and makes blocking off a road easier via the LED warning signals on the panels. They power themselves and collect a lot of energy generated from the sun which could help power car recharge stations on roadways to help promote the use of electric cars, and the extra power could be used in houses or buildings. The second would be in The Ocean Cleanup which has been developing floating barriers that are cost-effective and are engineered so the plastic filters itself through the barriers due to the ocean current, and it allows all animals including large whales to small plankton to safely pass under and through the barriers. This project could clean up the half the Great Pacific Garbage Patch in 10 years’ time and this has been demonstrated in recent models. Both of these projects would create thousands of jobs and would be a step in the right direction that would help clean up the planet, and they are both simple ventures that many Americans would be in agreement with. Rodrigaf197 (talk) 22:37, 15 July 2015 (EDT)

I absolutely love the idea of solar roadways, as it is providing essential infrastructural components with an added (environmentally beneficial) purpose. Have you seen the solar bike path that was implemented in the Dutch city of Krommenie? It is both incredibly laudable and remarkable (it does need more improvements in terms of durability and efficiency, but that is to be expected as it is still essentially a trial run). To take the solar roads further it would be awesome to couple the solar cell roadways with technology that would allow us to also capture the frictional and kinetic energy of the cars that utilize the roadways, thereby maximizing energy production (this has been done only with kinetic energy, if you are interested look up TheMotionPower™ system by New Energy Technology, Inc.). Alexanderlevitz (talk) 19:33, 17 July 2015 (EDT)

• I would use most of the money on researching ways to get appropriate technology to people in third world countries so they can get access to get clean water and cleaner fuels/energy to cook with. I would spend the rest of the money on making this a reality. I believe this would allow them to live healthier lives, and would help to decrease the amount of harmful emissions in the environment. I also believe that in addition to getting appropriate technologies into their communities we also need to educate them on ways to sustain the equipment that we are leaving them with. This, I believe, would eventually help to get them out of their financial instabilities as well; but that would be a long term goal for this project. Ruizja196 (talk) 23:12, 15 July 2015 (EDT)

• I really like this idea for two reasons. One, it is so important to help clean up the water in the world so that it can be useful for multiple purposes. Two, this technology would directly help people of underdeveloped countries. I am a huge advocate for helping people in second and third would countries, so this really hits home for me. It is so important to help other humans as we are all on this planet together. Lets help each other and strive for a better world.

LeannaCollard (talk) 09:23, 16 July 2015 (EDT)

• If I had $50 Billion, I would invest money in reducing our use of fossil fuels by designing and constructing transportation that would run on renewable resources, which will reduce our Carbon footprint. I would hire a team to research further and design a better model of a car that would harness hydrogen fuel cells. I would also want the team to make it economical for the average consumer. Visserjr199 (talk) 17:06, 16 July 2015 (EDT)
• could you name some specific ways that you could construct efficient transportation? Would it be underground rails or bus transportation? Rodrigaf197 (talk) 16:44, 17 July 2015 (EDT)