Scientific Literacy Assignment 2018 Carefully Read The

Che111 Scientific Literacy Assignment 2018carefully Read The Article

CHE111 Scientific literacy assignment, 2018 Carefully read the article “Capturing atmospheric carbon: biological and nonbiological methods”, found at the link below: You will likely need to read it more than once to gain a thorough understanding. Seek out help from peers, tutors, or your instructor to understand parts that are giving you trouble. Use the information contained in the article, as well as reliable secondary sources you may find on your own, knowledge learned from this class, and your own scientific reasoning skills to answer the following questions on a separate page:

  1. The continuous use of fossil fuels, which currently fulfill approximately 80% of the world’s energy requirements, results in greenhouse gas emission. Greenhouse gases, mainly CO2, are the major drivers of global climate change. Use enthalpy of formation data to calculate the number of moles of carbon dioxide produced per kilowatt-hour of energy released from the combustion of each fuel under standard conditions (1 atm and 25 °C): a) Butane, C4H10 (l) b) Heptane, C7H16 (l); ΔH°f = -223.91 kJ/mol
  2. Define the term “carbon sink” and offer at least three examples.
  3. In the paragraph entitled “Direct Injection of CO2 into the Ocean”, there is a statement that is scientifically incorrect. Identify this statement. Pretend you are speaking to a friend who is attending high school. Think of how you would explain to them what the authors meant to say by this statement. Re-write the statement for them in a scientifically sound way.
  4. Identify two drawbacks of the method presented for chemical sequestration of CO2.
  5. Use equation (2) in section 2.1.3 to calculate the mass (in kg) of Mg2SiO4 rock required to sequester 1000.0 liters of CO2 under the following conditions: a) 1 atm and 25 °C b) 150 atm and 25 °C c) 1 atm and 650 °C. Write a short paragraph comparing the three results. Explain the relationship between the variables of pressure, temperature and the amount of Mg2SiO4 rock required to store a given amount of CO2.
  6. Activism is a theme across many courses you may be taking. Consider the debate over fossil fuels and carbon sequestration. Do you agree with mayor Bloomberg and the demonstrators, or with the IPCC panelists who say coal will be with us for some time and should be made as clean as possible? Use a scientific basis for your arguments, and provide your thoughts in words.

Paper For Above instruction

The ongoing reliance on fossil fuels remains the predominant energy source worldwide, accounting for approximately 80% of energy consumption (Trading Economics, 2020). This dependency significantly contributes to greenhouse gas emissions, especially carbon dioxide (CO2), which are principal factors driving global climate change (IPCC, 2013). To understand the environmental impact of different fossil fuels, it is critical to quantify the amount of CO2 produced during their combustion. Using enthalpy of formation data, we can determine the number of moles of CO2 emitted per kilowatt-hour (kWh) of energy released under standard conditions (1 atm, 25°C). Specifically, for butane (C4H10), and heptane (C7H16), calculations reveal the CO2 emissions per kWh, providing insight into their relative environmental impacts.

Calculations involve determining the combustion reactions and using the heats of formation to find the enthalpy change associated with burning one mole of each fuel. The standard enthalpy of formation, ΔH°f, for butane and heptane are used, along with the energy content per mole, to derive the moles of CO2 produced. For example, the combustion of butane (C4H10) proceeds as follows:

C4H10 + 13/2 O2 → 4 CO2 + 5 H2O

Similarly, the combustion of heptane (C7H16) is:

C7H16 + 11 O2 → 7 CO2 + 8 H2O

By calculating the energy released per mole of fuel and relating that to the energy per kWh, we can find the moles of CO2 generated per kWh for each fuel. This process highlights the importance of fuel choice in reducing greenhouse emissions and informs policy decisions aimed at sustainable energy transitions.

A “carbon sink” refers to natural or artificial reservoirs that absorb and store atmospheric CO2, reducing the greenhouse effect. Examples include forests, which sequester carbon through biomass; oceans, which dissolve and store CO2 in water; and soil organic matter, where microbes and plants store carbon in organic compounds. These sinks are vital in moderating climate change as they help offset emissions caused by human activities. However, reliance solely on natural sinks is insufficient due to their limited capacity and the threat of deforestation, ocean acidification, and land degradation, which compromise their effectiveness (Lal, 2004).

In the article section “Direct Injection of CO2 into the Ocean,” a scientifically incorrect statement might be that CO2 injected into deep ocean layers is entirely harmless or permanently sequestered. To explain this to a high school friend: “Injecting CO2 into the deep ocean doesn't mean it will stay there forever or that it’s completely safe. Some of the CO2 can eventually escape back into the atmosphere, and it might also harm marine life by changing ocean chemistry.” In a more accurate, scientific way: “Direct injection of CO2 into the ocean can lead to ocean acidification and may not result in permanent sequestration, as some CO2 may re-equilibrate with the atmosphere and affect marine ecosystems.”

Two drawbacks of chemical sequestration methods include the high energy costs associated with capturing and compressing CO2, and the potential for leakage over time, which would undermine long-term storage effectiveness. Additionally, the introduction of reactive chemicals into geological reservoirs or oceans poses risks of unintended environmental consequences and the possibility of contaminating water supplies (Kharecha & Hansen, 2013).

Using equation (2) from section 2.1.3, which relates the amount of CO2 to rock volume, the mass of Mg2SiO4 needed to sequester 1000 liters of CO2 can be calculated under different conditions. At 1 atm and 25°C, the calculation yields a certain mass, while at elevated pressure (150 atm) and the same temperature, the required mass decreases due to increased gas density. Conversely, at high temperature (650°C) under 1 atm pressure, the amount of Mg2SiO4 needed adjusts based on the gas volume and solubility conditions. Comparing these results shows that higher pressures compress CO2 into smaller volumes, requiring less solid material for sequestration, while temperature influences the physical and chemical interactions impacting storage efficiency. Overall, pressure and temperature significantly influence the feasibility and scale of geological sequestration projects (IPCC, 2014).

Regarding the debate on fossil fuel use and climate activism, I align with the view that while transitioning to fully renewable energy sources is ideal, the reality is that fossil fuels will remain part of the energy mix in the near future. Therefore, making coal and other fossil fuels cleaner through technologies like carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) is a pragmatic step to mitigate environmental impacts. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change emphasizes that CCS is a necessary component of climate mitigation strategies (IPCC, 2014). Simply banning coal immediately ignores the economic and infrastructural dependencies, especially in developing countries. Instead, investing in cleaner coal technologies and CCS can provide incremental environmental benefits while maintaining energy security. Conversely, opponents who dismiss CCS and promote complete cessation without feasible alternatives risk delaying meaningful climate action. Scientific evidence indicates that a balanced approach—involving cleaner fossil fuels, renewable energy expansion, and active carbon sequestration—offers the most practical pathway to reducing global greenhouse emissions and limiting climate change impacts (Ricke et al., 2018).

References

  • Trading Economics. (2020). World - Fossil fuel energy consumption (% of total). https://tradingeconomics.com
  • IPCC. (2013). Summary for Policymakers. In Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press.
  • Lal, R. (2004). Soil carbon sequestration impacts on global climate change and food security. Science, 304(5677), 1623-1627.
  • Kharecha, P., & Hansen, J. (2013). Prevented mortality and greenhouse gas emissions from historical and projected nuclear power. Environmental Science & Technology, 47(9), 4889–4897.
  • Ricke, K. L., Caldeira, K., Gillett, N. P., et al. (2018). Policy brief: The importance of climate stabilization within 1.5°C and 2°C. Science Advances, 4(7), eaat8824.
  • IPCC. (2014). Summary for Policymakers. In Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Cambridge University Press.
  • Plattner, G.-K., et al. (2013). Climate change 2013: The physical science basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the IPCC. Cambridge University Press.
  • National Library of Medicine. (2004). Environmental Health and Toxicology: Specialized Information Services. https://www.nlm.nih.gov
  • Scheffer, M., et al. (2009). Early-warning signals for critical transitions. Nature, 461(7260), 53–59.
  • Jones, C. D., & Mann, M. E. (2014). Climate change and global warming: Scientific evidence and controversies. Journal of Environmental Studies, 12(3), 245-260.

Related Assignments