Can we solve our current energy crisis in an ecologically friendly manner? Can we gain better understanding on ecological systems when viewed from a technological perspective? The answer is a big yes but only if our intellect is up to the challenge.
By: Ringo Bones and Vanessa Uy
Ecology, the branch of science that deals with the interactions of living organisms and their environment, a term derived from two Greek words which mean ”the study of the home” while technology is the totality of the means employed to provide objects necessary for human sustenance and comfort.
Since humans are the dominant “life form” on this planet, and are viewed as the cause célèbre for all of our ecological problems. Paradoxically, it is us that can only solve the problems that we create in the first place. One of the problems that we face today is our increasing demand for energy generation that is not necessarily environmentally friendly to begin with. How we go about solving this must go hand in hand on how we will protect our environment just to keep our planet habitable in the future. All the energy that mankind utilizes, whether renewable or not, all come from nature. Only a handful of scientists like R. Buckminster Fuller view ecosystems as an interrelationship between matter and energy or more aptly living organisms and energy.
All ecosystems are governed by: “The Laws of Thermodynamics”, this is the relationship between matter and energy in a system. The First Law of Thermodynamics states that “the sum total energy in a system is constant” i.e. energy can neither be created nor destroyed. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that there is a tendency toward entropy or maximum disorganization of a structure and the loss of usable energy. These laws prevent us from formulating an easy solution to our energy problem in an ecologically friendly manner. But first, let’s check out how nature manages energy to sustain an ecosystem.
In autotrophic based ecosystems, the energy that is stored through net primary production by photosynthetic organisms is used to support higher trophic levels. Energy flows only one way through these levels with decreasing amount at each level. The energy that is captured by the autotrophs (photosynthetic plants) does not revert back to the sun. And also; what energy that flows to the herbivore does not flow back to the photosynthetic plants, and so on, as it moves through the various trophic levels, energy is no longer available to the previous level. The important implication of this unidirectional flow of energy in an ecosystem is that the system would collapse if the primary source of energy, like the sun is cut off.
The next major fact to be noted is the progressive decrease in energy at each trophic level. This fact can be explained by the energy lost as heat in metabolic activity and manifests here as respiration. This particular ecosystem also has a large amount of unutilized energy. Even if more of this “unutilized energy” is being used in a more efficient system, there would still be considerable loss due to respiration. Thus, even with more efficient energy utilization, considerable energy would still be required to maintain the system.
These factors-Unidirectional energy flow and inefficient energy utilization-account for the requirement of a steady stream of energy to avoid the collapse of an ecosystem. An ecosystem simply cannot itself when deprived of a source of energy input for an extended period of time.
To know more about this energy flow or how “Mother Nature” does energy management on ecosystems, Vanessa and I studied R. Buckminster Fuller’s thesis about “energy and wealth.” At first we thought that we came to a wrong conclusion. At present, most college physics students are taught the idea that the energy of a closed system remains constant, but as time goes on its entropy always increases. That is, natural processes always tend toward states of increased disorder. Based on what they’re taught, those college students could conclude that what humanity’s been doing is using up our available sources of energy at a rate greater than the ability of our technology to make new sources available. Until solar energy is in use on an everyday basis, humanity had better hang on to our oil, coal, natural gas, and wood.
The more we studied R. Buckminster Fuller’s thesis, the more uncomfortable we felt on his rejection on the second law of thermodynamics as a universal principle. This rejection is based on his own axiom that there are no closed systems-that closed systems; like straight lines or bodies at rest, are like obsolete Aristotelian concepts that hinder, rather than help, our understanding of the universe.
Fuller’s synergetic-energetic geometry is still debatable, of course, and it will probably take another generation of experiments and research before his position on the second law of thermodynamics is truly confirmed or refuted. However, a modification of that law has become generally accepted-and if “most college physics students” does not know about this, most graduate physics students do (like Ringo), this concept was only known to graduate physics students because it is a relatively recent finding. Only college physics students who go out of their way and follow closely the latest trends in the advancement of thermodynamic research can know about this. This refers to the development of general systems theory, which redefines both closed and open systems. While closed systems follow the second law precisely, and entropy increases within them, making less energy usable, open systems operate without this restriction, so that negative entropy (negentropy) may increase, making energy more usable.
As L. Brillouin wrote in American Scientist in 1949:
The second¬ [law] means death by confinement…Many textbooks, even the best of them, are none too cautious when they describe the increase of entropy…The theory of relativity, and all the cosmological, quantum mechanical theories that followed…involve a bold revision and drastic modification of the laws of thermodynamics…The earth is not a closed system…The sentence to “death by confinement” is avoided by living in a world that is not a confined and closed system.
Of course, this does not deny the existence of an ecological problem. It’s because the scientists concerned wish that this problem should be understood correctly, as a misuse of technology, like the increase of “greenhouse gasses” in our atmosphere, rather than a consequence of an inescapable human law. This law is a product of our current understanding of the universe, that Fuller and others have emphasized so urgently that there is nothing in thermodynamics that makes the growing ecological disaster inevitable.
So what does all of this suppose to mean? First the ecological structure of our planet is quite complex that it is very easy for the powers- that- be like industrialist and politicians with the help of scientists in their payroll to refute the existence of global warming. They do this by stating that our current knowledge of the planet’s ecosystem is insufficient or flawed and to contradict to this would take research and experiments that would take so much time and money as to be an anathema to the shaky relations between science and politics. Second, we cannot stop technological progress. The Genie is out of the bottle so we have to deal with it rationally. One viable solution to this problem is to move our less ecologically friendly industries out into space, thus the urgent need for “green energy” to escape the earth’s “gravity well.” This in turn will make it easier for us to turn the entire planet as a nature preserve with us humans as an integral part of it.
Showing posts with label Ecology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ecology. Show all posts
Friday, January 11, 2008
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Our Bees Are Dying
The idea seems so absurd, but toward the end of 2006, everyone in the United States agricultural community had noticed that bees – especially in America’s Northeast region – are becoming scarce.
By: Vanessa Uy
Albert Einstein once said that if all the bees in the world were to disappear, the human race has only four years to live. Bees are extremely important to agricultural crops because without bees not only will our food crops fail to yield their fruits, our food crops won’t be able to reproduce without the aid of bees in their pollination. Remember apiculture (bee keeping) is more than just producing honey.
The phenomenon that describes the continuing decline of honeybee population in the United States is called: “Colony Collapse Disorder.” Colony Collapse Disorder was first observed in a blueberry farm in the state of Maine. Ken State University had conducted bee “autopsies” in the field where Colony Collapse Disorder had occurred. Dennis Van Engelsdorp, one of the researchers investigating the phenomenon have found out that autopsies conducted on the dead bees show that signs of disease are present but the cause is still a mystery. As of the middle of May 2007 the preliminary findings suggest that “Colony Collapse Disorder” -might be caused -by an agent that affects the bee’s immune system.
Even though the jury is still out, “Colony Collapse Disorder” has already been declared as a “calamity” by various farm and agricultural communities in the US. Watermelons and other honeybee dependent crops have shown decline in their yields during the past two years. This had cost farmers millions of dollars in lost yields. At present, “Colony Collapse Disorder” is still localized in the northeastern part of the United States. If we don’t understand this phenomena and create a solution before this spreads around the world, mankind is doomed.
By: Vanessa Uy
Albert Einstein once said that if all the bees in the world were to disappear, the human race has only four years to live. Bees are extremely important to agricultural crops because without bees not only will our food crops fail to yield their fruits, our food crops won’t be able to reproduce without the aid of bees in their pollination. Remember apiculture (bee keeping) is more than just producing honey.
The phenomenon that describes the continuing decline of honeybee population in the United States is called: “Colony Collapse Disorder.” Colony Collapse Disorder was first observed in a blueberry farm in the state of Maine. Ken State University had conducted bee “autopsies” in the field where Colony Collapse Disorder had occurred. Dennis Van Engelsdorp, one of the researchers investigating the phenomenon have found out that autopsies conducted on the dead bees show that signs of disease are present but the cause is still a mystery. As of the middle of May 2007 the preliminary findings suggest that “Colony Collapse Disorder” -might be caused -by an agent that affects the bee’s immune system.
Even though the jury is still out, “Colony Collapse Disorder” has already been declared as a “calamity” by various farm and agricultural communities in the US. Watermelons and other honeybee dependent crops have shown decline in their yields during the past two years. This had cost farmers millions of dollars in lost yields. At present, “Colony Collapse Disorder” is still localized in the northeastern part of the United States. If we don’t understand this phenomena and create a solution before this spreads around the world, mankind is doomed.
Sunday, January 6, 2008
The Earth’s Ozone Layer: Safe at Last?
The Montreal Protocol might be working since scientists had observed a steady decline of ozone destroying chemicals in our atmosphere since the 1990’s, is this good news for the ozone layer?
By: Ringo Bones
Compared to the Kyoto Protocol’s mandate of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to limit the harm that could be caused by climate change. The Montreal Protocol’s mandate (mission?) of eliminating existing chemicals then in use in the industry and in domestic situations that are harmful to the Earth’s ozone layer was perceived as an insurmountable task – by both critics and proponents alike- 20 years ago.
The Montreal Protocol, whose full official title is the Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer is a treaty that was established on September 16, 1987 at Montreal, Canada by a 25 nation body who first signed on. Presently, 168 nations are now parties to the accord. The Montreal Protocol’s mandate was to set limits on the production of ozone depleting chemicals like chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), halons, and related substances that release chlorine or bromine to the ozone layer of the Earth’s atmosphere. But first, a brief description on how the ozone layer of our planet works.
The Earth’s ozone layer –or the part that filters harmful UV rays out- is found in the upper part of the stratosphere at 40 to 50 kilometers up. The ozone found at ground level is a pollutant. Ozone is an allotrope of oxygen. Allotrope is an element in two or more different forms usually in the same phase like the element carbon that can both exist as coal, or a diamond depending on how it’s atoms are arranged. Unlike the ordinary atmospheric i.e. diatomic oxygen that we breathe whose molecular structure is composed of two oxygen atoms, while ozone has three. Even though both are composed of the same elemental oxygen, ozone can irritate –even damage- our lungs in long term exposure. While monatomic oxygen i.e. gaseous oxygen existing as single atoms plays a part in providing color in the aurora borealis and australis as it gets hit by charged particles from the sun. Every time an ozone molecule gets hit by an energetic ultraviolet radiation from the sun like UV-B (cancer causing), UV-C (chromosomal and immune system damage) and UV-A (tans the skin but still harmful in excess), it breaks apart into a diatomic oxygen molecule and a monatomic oxygen. Oddly enough, the same harmful UV rays allow the ripped oxygen molecules to recombine into ozone thus the cycle continues. This is how ozone absorbs UV radiation. While ozone destroying chemicals that reach the stratosphere also break ozone molecules apart, the bad part is the ozone molecule broken by this method didn’t perform it’s duty of absorbing UV rays. If enough ozone is broken apart chemically, levels of harmful UV rays could reach the Earth’s surface.
The biggest hurdle in the total manufacture and utilization ban of ozone destroying chemicals is that the “miracles” of contemporary society like refrigerants / keeping things cool and putting out “technical” fires will be seriously affected by the ban. The haloalkane / BCF fire suppressant halon had saved countless fighter pilots that served during the Vietnam War. An F-105 Thunderchief survived being hit by a Soviet made surface-to-air missile to return to her home air base thanks to the halon fire suppression system. Next to the modern ejection seat, halon is the modern jet pilot’s “other best friend.”
Under the Montreal Protocol, the ozone depleting potential or ODP, of any substance is measured with respect to an equal molecular mass of CFC-11, which is assigned a value of 1.0. Most other CFC’s have an ODP rating that ranges from 0.5 to about 1.3. Hydrochlorofluorocarbons, which are being used as transitional replacements until 2020 for CFC’s in refrigeration, have ODP’s that are generally less than 0.5. The problem with hydrochlorofluorocarbons or HCFC’s is that HCFC’s are a very efficient greenhouse gas because of its high specific heat rating. Thus it’s use could contribute to global warming while it’s molecular structure is still under investigation if it chemically breaks down fast enough before it reaches into the stratospheric regions to affect the ozone layer. Hydrofluorocarbons, which are also replacing CFC’s as refrigerants, have an ODP of zero. The molecular structure of HFC’s allows it to chemically break down before it drifts high into the ozone layer. The caveats of hydrofluorocarbons or HFC’s is that the refrigeration system that use HFC’s as a refrigerant are inefficient compared to ones that use CFC or HCFC i.e. it consumes more electricity. Also, ozone-depleting potentials are based on existing scientific knowledge and are to be reviewed and revised periodically. Thus the ODP rating of HFC's could change in the future.
An article published in the March 5, 2007 edition of Science Now about the findings that chlorine based ozone destroying agents are in decline. But the scientists conducting the study are still weary about the future recovery status of our ozone layer because bromine based ozone destroying agents can not yet be tracked with certainty as easily as chlorine based agents using current procedures. The good news is that the preliminary findings suggest that if current preventive measures on ozone depleting chemicals continue, there will be a marked improvement on the status of the Earth’s ozone layer 50 years from now.
By: Ringo Bones
Compared to the Kyoto Protocol’s mandate of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to limit the harm that could be caused by climate change. The Montreal Protocol’s mandate (mission?) of eliminating existing chemicals then in use in the industry and in domestic situations that are harmful to the Earth’s ozone layer was perceived as an insurmountable task – by both critics and proponents alike- 20 years ago.
The Montreal Protocol, whose full official title is the Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer is a treaty that was established on September 16, 1987 at Montreal, Canada by a 25 nation body who first signed on. Presently, 168 nations are now parties to the accord. The Montreal Protocol’s mandate was to set limits on the production of ozone depleting chemicals like chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), halons, and related substances that release chlorine or bromine to the ozone layer of the Earth’s atmosphere. But first, a brief description on how the ozone layer of our planet works.
The Earth’s ozone layer –or the part that filters harmful UV rays out- is found in the upper part of the stratosphere at 40 to 50 kilometers up. The ozone found at ground level is a pollutant. Ozone is an allotrope of oxygen. Allotrope is an element in two or more different forms usually in the same phase like the element carbon that can both exist as coal, or a diamond depending on how it’s atoms are arranged. Unlike the ordinary atmospheric i.e. diatomic oxygen that we breathe whose molecular structure is composed of two oxygen atoms, while ozone has three. Even though both are composed of the same elemental oxygen, ozone can irritate –even damage- our lungs in long term exposure. While monatomic oxygen i.e. gaseous oxygen existing as single atoms plays a part in providing color in the aurora borealis and australis as it gets hit by charged particles from the sun. Every time an ozone molecule gets hit by an energetic ultraviolet radiation from the sun like UV-B (cancer causing), UV-C (chromosomal and immune system damage) and UV-A (tans the skin but still harmful in excess), it breaks apart into a diatomic oxygen molecule and a monatomic oxygen. Oddly enough, the same harmful UV rays allow the ripped oxygen molecules to recombine into ozone thus the cycle continues. This is how ozone absorbs UV radiation. While ozone destroying chemicals that reach the stratosphere also break ozone molecules apart, the bad part is the ozone molecule broken by this method didn’t perform it’s duty of absorbing UV rays. If enough ozone is broken apart chemically, levels of harmful UV rays could reach the Earth’s surface.
The biggest hurdle in the total manufacture and utilization ban of ozone destroying chemicals is that the “miracles” of contemporary society like refrigerants / keeping things cool and putting out “technical” fires will be seriously affected by the ban. The haloalkane / BCF fire suppressant halon had saved countless fighter pilots that served during the Vietnam War. An F-105 Thunderchief survived being hit by a Soviet made surface-to-air missile to return to her home air base thanks to the halon fire suppression system. Next to the modern ejection seat, halon is the modern jet pilot’s “other best friend.”
Under the Montreal Protocol, the ozone depleting potential or ODP, of any substance is measured with respect to an equal molecular mass of CFC-11, which is assigned a value of 1.0. Most other CFC’s have an ODP rating that ranges from 0.5 to about 1.3. Hydrochlorofluorocarbons, which are being used as transitional replacements until 2020 for CFC’s in refrigeration, have ODP’s that are generally less than 0.5. The problem with hydrochlorofluorocarbons or HCFC’s is that HCFC’s are a very efficient greenhouse gas because of its high specific heat rating. Thus it’s use could contribute to global warming while it’s molecular structure is still under investigation if it chemically breaks down fast enough before it reaches into the stratospheric regions to affect the ozone layer. Hydrofluorocarbons, which are also replacing CFC’s as refrigerants, have an ODP of zero. The molecular structure of HFC’s allows it to chemically break down before it drifts high into the ozone layer. The caveats of hydrofluorocarbons or HFC’s is that the refrigeration system that use HFC’s as a refrigerant are inefficient compared to ones that use CFC or HCFC i.e. it consumes more electricity. Also, ozone-depleting potentials are based on existing scientific knowledge and are to be reviewed and revised periodically. Thus the ODP rating of HFC's could change in the future.
An article published in the March 5, 2007 edition of Science Now about the findings that chlorine based ozone destroying agents are in decline. But the scientists conducting the study are still weary about the future recovery status of our ozone layer because bromine based ozone destroying agents can not yet be tracked with certainty as easily as chlorine based agents using current procedures. The good news is that the preliminary findings suggest that if current preventive measures on ozone depleting chemicals continue, there will be a marked improvement on the status of the Earth’s ozone layer 50 years from now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
