Chem321:Discussion 13

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

You have a lot of work going on, so this discussion is straightforward. Please leave your initial comment below by Wednesday, August 7th at midnight. Then, by Friday at noon, please post a followup answer to two other students' comments. Please start your comment with a star, and sign with four tilde marks.

"Choose one viable green technology that you would like to see widely adopted by 2050. What would that technology look like, and what effect would it have on our global environmental footprint?

Angela Caracci

• There are many advances in green technology in efforts to reduce the non-renewable resources we use as well as the carbon emissions we give off by current practices. By 2050 I would like to see many homes, as well as business' and factories producing their own energy. Throughout the semester I learned about the benefits of solar panels and wind turbines. We would see many roofs in the future with solar panels. These places would be using that energy for lighting, cooking, and heating, just to name a few. In addition to solar panels on the roof, we would see an increase of small scale and large scale wind turbines (depending on where they are being used). This too would be used for producing electricity. Both methods can drastically reduce the need to burn fossil fuels, and help us move away from using non-renewable resources. In the future these methods will become more affordable, and it will be the common method in obtaining energy for use. Angela.M.Caracci (talk) 16:35, 7 August 2013 (EDT)

• Angela, your proposal for rooftop solar panels and wind turbines competes with my proposal for rooftop greenhouses. As a rebuttal to your suggestion - I'd like to argue that wind-farms are better placed in environments where wind is abundant. This may suggest that wind energy could be more efficiently, in cost as well as time, be produced in strategically chosen sites. In contrast - rooftop greenhouses would allow for farmers to create controlled growth environments for their crops in any location, which could be grown through hydroponic methods. These crops could then be distributed locally to the population of the city. Furthermore, the reading assigned to us written by Chris Goodall suggests that solar energy thus far has not been able to replicate the cost-efficiency of simply insulating buildings more effectively. This is likely a greater concern in cities far from the equator where light might not be as abundant as it is in other cities. If solar energy is to become more cost effective though - perhaps you and I could compromise and find a way to created greenhouses that control internal heat alongside the use of solar panels found on the tops of the greenhouses. Tom.fuchs (talk) 18:43, 7 August 2013 (EDT)

• Tom, i really like the idea of rooftop greenhouses, but i find it hard to believe that in a near future most rooftops will be producing their own food. It is a great idea for farmers as you have mentioned, but i do not think the average "joe" will have time to maintain their garden, especially as we continue to live faster pace lives and demand things quicker. I believe that price is a large factor in why solar panels have not taken off, but with time and increased research they should become more obtainable. As for your comment on those who may not have as much wind for wind turbines or sun for solar panels to be effective, i agree these are issues for usage in those areas. The fact is most areas get sun and wind, and getting those areas to switch to solar panels or turbines would be the first step in decreasing our emissions and pollution.Angela.M.Caracci (talk) 22:58, 7 August 2013 (EDT)

• I think this is an excellent idea, often called "distributed generation," and although it's only marginally cost-effective now (it is viable with subsidies) it will be much more viable by 2050. One of the problems with things like the hydrogen economy is the high cost of transporting the fuel around (I once read an academic article that said that this issue would mean that hydrogen would never be a viable fuel.) Even with other renewable energy sources like wind, often the best locations (e.g., North Dakota in the US) are far from centers of population (east & west coasts), so the electricity often needs to go long distances. Although a solar panel in NYC makes much less electricity than one in the near-deserts of Texas (or near you in Nevada!), it is producing power right where it's needed, so you don't have the power losses (about 1% per 100 miles) and costs associated with long power lines. You are also more self-sufficient in the event of ice storms, etc. I can see the issue of competition with Tom's rooftops proposals, but I suspect your idea might work best in rural areas (where energy supply may be more expensive & unreliable, but local food is cheaply available) whereas Tom's would be most effective in the city. I'm personally a big fan of anything that can work in a more decentralized way. Naturally you still need SOME wind or sun, and not every location would work, but I think this will play a significant role by 2050. Martin A. Walker 11:38, 9 August 2013 (EDT)

Tom Fuchs

• A viable green technology I would like to see widely adopted by 2050 is commercial scale rooftop produce production. I have seen pictures of this sort of thing in optimistic “green” depictions of future cities. A company, called Lufa Farms, has successfully begun turning profits using a rooftop greenhouse in Montreal, Canada, a fairly cold environment. Lufa Farms describes using CO2 emissions from fuels used in energy production – to help the plants in the greenhouse grow – which allows for the farm to be close to carbon neutral (source - http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/intelligent-energy/coming-soon-commercial-scale-rooftop-produce/16889). Additionally – the greenhouse provides insulation for the buildings below it as it utilizes heat from the building to maintain adequate temperatures for growth in the greenhouse. These city rooftop greenhouses could provide food for entire cities through conservative methods such as hydroponics – thus reducing costs, oil use, use of raw materials, and emissions associated with transport of produce. Furthermore – these rooftop greenhouses could even potentially contain aquaponic systems! In this way – not only could rooftop greenhouses provide vegetables cities locally, but these greenhouses could also provide animal protein for the city population! Of course – a balance such as this would be quite the challenge to make profitable with the very limited space available. Additionally – the prospect of actually providing produce for an entire city utilizing these rooftop greenhouses is rather slim. The Food and Agriculture Organization estimates the need for 0.5 hectares (1.2 acres) of land necessary for the growth of produce for a single American resident in a year – however this estimate includes the current levels of meat consumption. If per capita meat consumption is to be reduced, then the use of rooftop greenhouses could potentially ACTUALLY provide a majority of the dietary needs of a community. On top of these great things – if rooftop buildings became commonplace in largely populated cities such as Tokyo or NYC, then the amount of soil turned and utilized for agriculture could potentially be re-allocated for the production of bio-fuels! These biofuels could then in turn be used to run our cars, buildings, and greenhouses. This use of biofuels could then subsequently vastly reduce carbon emissions used by a city.

Tom.fuchs (talk) 17:41, 7 August 2013 (EDT)

• I think commercial scale produce production is a great viable idea. There is so much area on these rooftops, especially in cities where much light doesn't reach the ground that it can be utilized to grow produce. Even if the growth was on a small scale or private based operation then people could benefit from this tremendously. Think about a house in NYC with several tenants that could grow their own produce for themselves. With all these people chipping in they could grow a lot of food for a rather cheap price. Slomasa192 (talk) 13:50, 8 August 2013 (EDT)

• Tom, I love the idea of commercial scale rooftop produce production. Cities are always looked at as "concrete jungles" but I like the thought of looking up at a rooftop and seeing something that resembles a real jungle with edible produce. I also think that this could be easily done by 2050, and it makes me wonder why this hasn't been done on a large scale already. KatieLaVoie (talk) 09:03, 9 August 2013 (EDT)

• • Tom, you should definitely look at Magenta's paper, which talks about this topic in detail - not so much greenhouses, but rooftop gardens in general. I think they are a great idea, and Magenta presented some nice evidence on how they keep a building cooler in summer and warmer in winter without so much need for a/c or space heating. As you point out, they can also produce useful locally produced food in city areas where such things are typically less available. You should also be aware that this also related to the long tradition of "garden cities" in the UK, which began with Letchworth. I don't think it would be viable to grow biofuels - the land value of a city garden is just too high, and you'd want to use marginal land in remote areas for growing biofuels, IMHO. Martin A. Walker 11:49, 9 August 2013 (EDT)

Abby Langdon

I would really like to see biodiesel that replaces fossil fuels we use in our cars be widely adopted by 2050. Biodiesel comes from a process that turns old cooking oil into a Constable form of fuel for diesel engines. This alternative would look a lot like the fuels we use now. Biodiesel has the ability to decrease our waste and reduce the amount of emissions we put into the atmosphere.

• This is very interesting. I like the idea of using old cooking oil as fuel, because it allows us to recycle from one process (cooking) and use the remains to run our car. It is beneficial to our environment as well! It does not contain any petroleum like the fuel we use now, and it will cut down on CO2 emissions. This would be great for the future. Angela.M.Caracci (talk) 16:42, 7 August 2013 (EDT)

• I really like the idea of replacing fossil fuels for cars with cooking oil. Not only would it benefit the environment but it would also run cheaper for the consumer since it's waste that will be produced whether or not it's being reused. Also it would be very feasible because it wouldn't be too big of a change for people to make from fossil fuels. KatieLaVoie (talk) 08:56, 9 August 2013 (EDT)

• This is a great idea I know that it is possible to do now but I'm not sure how easy it is to switch over the engine so it can use this type of fuel. I know I've heard of people being able to use leftover french fry grease to run their cars! That's a great point about the waste being reduced for something useful. (Magenta (talk) 10:13, 9 August 2013 (EDT))

• • Yes, I'm sure we'll see a lot more of this by 2050, assuming we still have diesel vehicles by then. I don't think biodiesel will completely replace petroleum-based diesel by then, but a blend of the two is very likely to become popular. In the last few years, biodiesel has gone from being a hobby project for a few environmentalists to being an industrial-scale mass product, and in Europe 1.4 billion gallons of biodiesel were estimated to have been produced in 2012. In the US many colleges now take the waste from their cafeterias and turn it into biodiesel for running the campus vehicles. By 2050 I agree that it could easily be a major transportation fuel. Martin A. Walker 12:00, 9 August 2013 (EDT)

Katie Lavoie

By 2050 I would like to see willow plants used as biofuel. As seen in Dr. Ewy’s video willows are viable during winter and are capable of growing on poor soil. The technology is already being put to use, it would just need to become more accepted and widespread. This type of technology is capable of having a large impact on our global environment. Fuels that are currently used to heat most homes and run various modes of transportation emit large amounts of pollution, with willows replacing those fuels pollution could be dramatically reduced.KatieLaVoie (talk) 21:58, 7 August 2013 (EDT)

• Katie, this is a great idea! Especially because we have such brutal winters in the north country. It would be nice to see such a sustainable crop come from this area that can also provide a large revenue. AbbyL (talk) 13:00, 8 August 2013 (EDT)

• Katie, I to agree with you that the use of willow as a biofuel in the future would be something very promising. There is so much marginal land that isn;t being used for farming that if the right willow is grown in these areas and can be processed close to the source than it could make a very large dent in our use of fossil fuels. Slomasa192 (talk) 13:42, 8 August 2013 (EDT)

• Willow plants as biofuel was definitely a very interesting point that we talked about in this course. I never realized how sustainable the willow plant is and how it could be used as a biofuel. The willows would definitely be able to supplement a lot of fuel we currently use to decrease pollution. (Magenta (talk) 10:16, 9 August 2013 (EDT))

Magenta Miller

One green technology I would like to see is better water purification systems in countries that need them the most. This will create more equal living standards for all people on earth. This is a basic necessity that all people have a right to so I think that by 2050 we should be able to deliver that standard. The technology would have to be easily used and assembled because many rural communities won't have access to certain technologies that would fix a broken water purifier. This would help to create clean water and a better environment for many people. (Magenta (talk) 18:06, 7 August 2013 (EDT))

• Magenta, there are a few ways water gets purified. I assume you would want to use green water purification which would involve treating water without adding anything to it. When we did our ACME presentations I talked about two possible ways to treat water, one being ozone and the other with UV light. Would you want to use methods like this? Also, above you said they won't have access to fix broken purifiers, so how would you make sure these systems are maintained? Overall I like any process that does not contribute to pollution and use a lot of energy, and green water purification is a great method to obtain clean water. :DAngela.M.Caracci (talk) 22:42, 7 August 2013 (EDT)

• Yes your ideas in the presentation would definitely be viable methods! When I said that they wouldn't be able to fix it I simply meant that when they received the technology of the purifiers we would have to ensure that people knew how to fix it if it got broken. In one of the powerpoints I remember that some rural communities would get great technology but when it broke down there was no one who could fix the machinery! I just meant we would have to be sure that this would problem would not happen again. (Magenta (talk) 10:19, 9 August 2013 (EDT))

• I agree! I always try a think of ways countries like us can help poorer countries. I would be great to see countries like Nicaragua, who have almost no clean drinking water and no resources to obtain it, have clean water. Seeing as how water is the number one thing we need to sustain life it is not right that not all countries have it available to them. Water purification systems that need very little technology would be ideal because they would be simple to use and hopefully less expensive. AbbyL (talk) 13:04, 8 August 2013 (EDT)

• Two-thirds of the rural population of Africa, which has a combined population of over 1 billion people, lack access to drinkable water; and each day almost 35,000 people worldwide die from water related illnesses. In fact, more children die from water-borne illness like cholera and diarrhea than die as a result of war. Diarrhea alone causes more than 1.6 million deaths each year; and most are children younger than five.In countries like Mexico and Bangladesh, much of the water contains dangerous contaminants like pesticides, sewage, medical waste, and arsenic. That same water is then used for irrigation, contaminating the fruits and vegetables that they eat.Haw7thorne (talk) 02:35, 9 August 2013 (EDT)

• Certainly! This is a good example of appropriate technology, which we covered in this one of the Dorf readings. As John (aka Haw7thorne) points out, there is a dire need for this. Of course NGOs are already very active in this area, and they are often able to show people how to use low-tech methods to get fresh drinking water - so clearly for many villages the problem is more political and organizational, rather than technological. Nevertheless, technology can definitely help to make the job easier, particularly if it is technology that can be made and maintained locally. (In fact, the neighbor of my brother in England is an engineer who has designed such a water pump, and his main work now involves getting his pump made and used in places like Africa). Thanks, Martin A. Walker 12:13, 9 August 2013 (EDT)

John Rogers

• I think that what would help us most is a more sustainable, nationwide hydrogen-fueled, high-speed/light rail system. I think that this would greatly improve our ability to use less energy, leaving less waste and mitigating the many negative impacts that we currently have on the ecosystem. I would start by soliciting the expertise and money found in the private sector; innovators, businessmen etc. I would then likely create a fund matching program whereby the federal government would match the funds raised by the pilot cities and their investors in order to instigate its growth. Lastly, I would organize a state subsidy rewarding drivers who have will sell their cars and rely in totem on the light/high speed rail system to travel within and between cities and states for at least two-years.Haw7thorne (talk) 23:57, 7 August 2013 (EDT)

• The US is unusual in the developed world (though Canada and Australia also have problems) in that it has poor public transportation. Yet public transportation can both promote the local economy and reduce the environmental impact of people's travel. In the US, air travel has a near monopoly on long distance travel, while the automobile has a similar stranglehold for local travel, except in large cities - both of these are very polluting forms of transport. So I certainly support you proposal, even though it would certainly involve a lot of capital investment.

• It is often said that such ideas could never work in the US. Yet prior to 1940, and certainly prior to 1920, most Americans got around just fine using public transportation, and the "Chattanooga Choo Choo" was every bit as American as the Model T. But after WW2 rail transportation was deemed to be "old-fashioned" and thought to be going the way of the horse and cart, once interstate highways and ait routes began to cross the country. A similar trend was seen in much of Europe, except that by the 1970s there was a move to try and modernize the train instead of simply destroying it. And now we see (a) China, a successful developing country with money to invest, chose to build a network of thousands of miles of 200 mph trains, allowing routes fast journeys equivalent to NYC-Chicago at a fraction of the cost and environmental impact of the airplane. Meanwhile, many cities (even places in the US, like Boston) are investing in suburban rail and light rail and finding that there is a resurgence in demand if the service is good and the price is competitive with the car. If you link the two you end up with a reason to ditch the car & plane - so you can get on a light rail near your home in Yonkers, and travel to the big station in NYC, then catch a 200 mph train to Washington, DC, arriving a couple of hours later in downtown DC, then catching a subway or light rail to your family's home. Cheaper, more relaxing, and much greener than air or car. So yes - this gets my full support! Martin A. Walker (talk) 16:45, 9 August 2013 (EDT)

Stefan Sloma

I think one viable green technology that I would like to see adopted widely by 2050 is the introduction of plants and vegetation into urban areas. I understand that this isn't really a technology but it can be seen as one. I know that in places like New York City they have converted old, unused above ground subway and rail tracks into eco-gardens and walkways. They provided a space for people to walk and enjoy nature in an urban setting. I think if a lot more buildings or unused areas can become these eco-garden sanctuaries then there could be a positive effect on our global environmental footprint. By planting more trees and plants in areas that are now abandoned it would be better than just letting everything rot and decay. It would provide people a way to connect top nature again while helping the environment. Slomasa192 (talk) 13:39, 8 August 2013 (EDT)

• While I like your idea and think that even small cities could use a lot more green grass and trees, I'm not sure that I would as citizen be willing to support dressing a community up without first addressing its problems. For instance, I think that we could use a few trees in downtown Potsdam, but if we also had a problem with high concentrations of arsenic in the local water supply I would likely rather spend the towns money and time restoring our watershed. We need beauty and as well as bread--but we need the bread first.Haw7thorne (talk) 03:48, 9 August 2013 (EDT)

• I think this is an example of the word "environment" in its broadest sense. I lived in a poor area of a city in the UK, and the environment was originally one of run-down Victorian row houses, garbage in the streets, etc. In the 1980s, the council (which has won awards for its "greening" work generally, things like this are common) began to change the look of the area with trees, traffic calming, floral displays, and paying staff to clear away the trash from the streets. It helped to revitalize an area that would otherwise have ended up being demolished. So to answer John's point, I think greening an area can often work hand in hand with addressing poverty-based issues. Martin A. Walker 13:22, 9 August 2013 (EDT)