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)

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)

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 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, in utilizing He-3 it produces much 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 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)