Class Notes (835,309)
Canada (509,088)
Chemistry (600)
CHM310H1 (26)
Jon Abott (19)
Lecture

March 14th.docx

3 Pages
100 Views
Unlock Document

Department
Chemistry
Course
CHM310H1
Professor
Jon Abott
Semester
Winter

Description
March 14 th Last Energy lecture 1. The articles: project a positive pragmatic view of how to move forward. Success stories from removing chlorine from atmosphere. 2. Almost 6 years old, this field. And is very popular. 3. The heart of the article: we are increasing co2 emiisions. With time the amount of co2 rises. It is genrally accepted that we cannt keep c02 in preindustrial values. We have wasterd 7 years and wasted co2 in the atmpsher. During these years you allow new technologies to develop and move to a fossil free world. 4. It is going to take some time to get there. In order to not be here, and to instead be here, we have to avoid C going into the atmosphere. Broken down C into 7 cycles. We have to stop putting in C into atmpshere. Each is 25 billion tinnes and if we do that we would have allowed co2 to double. 5. They came up with 15 possible ways to not pt 25 billion tnnes of C into the atmosphere. 6. You only have to choose 7 from these 15 to get to where you want to be. 7. They have broken it into lot of things: pie chart. Take a look at it. Listen to this again. 8. Take a look at the pie chart and reasons. Article 2: 1. What you need to do if we need the world to be sustainable. 2. Don’t mention biofuel, done tog there. Don’t view it as attractive. Focused on wind, geothermal and hydroelectric. Enviroanmtally acceptable fomrs of sustainabae nergy. They say lets take a look at how much nergy is needed and have 3. Hydroelectric energy out there is potentially accessible: 4. Wind enery yello. Article page 60. There is conceivably 580 TW of solar. How much do we need? If we use a convetional supply we will need 700?TW. 5. What they are suggesting is that we need all these TW etc…? 6. This is not the total amount of energy hitting at any point of time. it is not how much nergy we used in the past, etc. 7. Is this feasible? Then they go into nos. in term of water they are talking about hydroelectric plants 9000MW 70% is in place. This is the source of renewable energy we all are running. 8. We need to put a half million on it. We need 2% of it into it. 9. There are large no’s of solar. Two billion rooftop photovoltaics. 10. pV powerplant  photoelectric effect to generate power 11. likely from 20 years from now we will hve 2 billion solar power and a few million wind power. Geo-engineering 1. question of whether or not we should engineer the planet to shange the climate ystem 2. to some degree we are doing it alaready, we are altering the climate system 3. do we really need geoengineering as a stop measure while we are adapting over to more energy efficient technologies. 4. There are no of different schemes, not operating now. 5. Slide 2: Ocean fertilization: satellite map of chlorophyll in the earths oceans. Some parts of thee ocean ave eyr low levels of chlorophylss. Because they are missing nutirne tlimits. The one that is most limiting is Fe our N, K, Fe. The natural fertilization is always going on in the ocean by the wind blown dust. Dust comes off the land, gets blown on to the ocean, gets deposited and fertilizes life forms tto grow. 6. The question is can we enhance it? 7. There is an expremient done: which is go out in a ship in antractic. They went out in a ship gallons of f e sulfate and put it into ocean. Going back and forth. This is a sattleite image of a certain region, the color is the chlorophyll region. The idea is that you fertilzie the phytoplankton and then they grow and eventually they get eaten by a biger organism that would eventually die and tke that C down below to the upper ocean. (biological pump). the red dots are shown when they are in the bloom. Dots out of the bloom. They measured how much co2 was in the air. When the boom was most prolific te co2 levels were depressed. some of the cruises had some net reduction of co2 that is in the atmosphere. Because they burned fossil fuels to gete there, then they pulled co2 during the experiment. So there was a net reduction. The net conclusion is that this wont work. You have to do this continuously. Erhaps only 1-15% on the original C in the surface water sinks below 500m of the ocean. there are lots of predators respiring on the upper ocean so the eat the pyhytoplankton respire and releases co2 which goes back up into the atmosphere. You don’t take as much as co2 as yu think, and you have to do it continuously. 8. This
More Less

Related notes for CHM310H1

Log In


OR

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


OR

By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.


Submit