Summary of roundtable discussions

This week we went through our roundtable discussion presentations. Through involvement of this discussion, I get familiar with the process and flow of roundtable discussion. The following is my summary about roundtable discussions presented by other 3 groups.

The topic for first group is green chemistry. There is one moderator, 2 supporters and 2 opponents. Green chemistry, also called sustainable chemistry, is a chemical philosophy encouraging the design of products and processes that reduce or eliminate the use and generation of hazardous substances. The supporters stated that currently global warming is a major issue all around the world, it is urgent to reduce the greenhouse gases. Green chemistry is a renewable and energy efficient technology. It uses safe chemicals and no harmful by-products are created during the process. So it should be focused on. But the opponents pointed out that it is better to deploy green chemistry in those developing countries. In developed countries, the industry was already fully established. Switching it to green chemistry technology will cost a lot. It seems not to be economical. I would to say that it is not necessary to destroy the established industries and rebuild them with green chemistry technology. It is optimistic to modify some important processes and gradually achieve the target.

Second group discussed whether microchip should be implanted to human body. Supporters listed its usefulness from a few fields like convenience, accuracy and fastness. The main point is that the microchip can record the human medical condition accurately. In case of an emergency, it is easily retrieved by doctors. But the opponents argued that this tiny device is moveable and its position cannot be controlled. If it goes to your heart by accident, the result could be disastrous. Human body may actually resist such an implantation. The microchip implanted in human body brought great convenience, at the same time it also brought potential identity theft. If your personal information was obtained by some intelligent hackers, it will be a huge lost. Under such a scenario, privacy is also an important factor to be considered if you decided to accept microchip implantation. I agree to the opponents. Microchip implantation seems far from reality and should be based on personal will.

The last topic presented is carbon filter technology. The supporters stated that it is a system of setup installed in factories to purify the exhausted gases. A graph was drawn to illustrate how it works. And such an act will help companies win good reputations. The opponents argued with logical thinking: Since such a technology is attractive, why there are no implementations in reality? I feel more towards the supporters. Sometimes technology implementation is decided by a lot of other social factors but not technology itself. As a company, it is responsible to do a part in the fight against global climate change.

That is all my understanding for all the topics discussed. I gained more in-depth knowledge about them.

Summary about 2 articles for roundtable discussion

The human history has stepped to 21st century. With the advanced technologies, challenges and opportunities co-exist in our society. Energy issue now becomes more and more important. Fossil fuel like oil is consumed in a large amount all around the world and emitted greenhouse gases which in turn contribute to global warming. Environmentalists and special interest groups have called on to replace fossil fuel with a renewable energy. Biofuels gradually come to our spotlight. I did some research and summarized 2 articles regarding biofuels as following.

First article is a brief introduction about biofuels by Justin Gillis in his article Biofuels published online on February 24, 2009. It starts the topic back to 19th century during which technological visionaries already conducted experiments showed that it was possible for engines to run on fuel made from plants. But fuels derived from plants lost out to fuels refined from crude oil in the days of motorized transport. It is not easy to replace fossil fuel now since they are the cheapest fuels for many decades and they are about as energy-dense as liquids can be. Biofuels attainted the greatest political momentum because they promise lucrative new markets for farm products. However, these 1st generation biofuels provoked intense backlash during applications. The 2nd generation biofuels are believed to offer greater promise but the technology to make them is still in its infancy. That is the main idea about this article.

Another article is “Biofuels: Green energy or grim reaper?” written by Jeffrey A McNeely who is a chief scientist of IUCN, the World Conservation Union based in Switzerland. He considered that biofuels could end up damaging the natural world rather than saving it from global warming. The reasons for his view about biofuels are summarized as below:

1. Huge consumption of grains;
2. Much of the fuel that Europeans use will be imported from Brazil, where the Amazon is being burned to plant more sugar and soybeans, and Southeast Asia, where oil palm plantations are destroying the rainforest habitat of orangutans and many other species;
3. One type of biofuels, ethanol, will likely come from maize. Growing maize appears to use 30% more energy than the finished fuel produces, and leaves eroded soils and polluted waters behind.
4. It will cause food price to increase more.

Then he suggested 2 things to do in current situations. The first step is to apply biotechnology to enhance the ethanol yield, reduce environmental damage from feedstock, and improve bioprocessing efficiency at the refinery. But it is not enough yet. The 2nd step is to mandate improved fuel efficiency for all forms of transport based on current technology.

These 2 articles broaden my knowledge about biofuels. There are reasons why some people still could not adopt them. The technology to make them still need be refined to meet requirements.

Five words/ phrases:
1. First-generation biofuels: ethanol made from corn or sugar cane, or biodiesel made from vegetable oil.
2. Second-generation biofuels: biofuels made from plant wastes, or from crops specially grown for the purpose on land not suitable for food production.
3. Fossil fuels: carbon or hydrocarbons found in the earth’s crust.
4. Monoculture: the agricultural practice of producing or growing one single crop over a wide area.
5. Biodiversity: the variation of life forms within a given ecosystem, biome, or for the entire Earth.

Reference:
Justin Gillis, February 24, 2009, “Biofuels”, Retrieved March 8, 2009, from
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/energy-environment/biofuels/index.html
Jeffrey A McNeely, September 22, 2006, “Biofuels: Green energy or grim reaper?”, Retrieved March 8, 2009, from
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5369284.stm