Natural Gas Vs Gasoline

Gasoline or petrol for any European readers out there, has been used as the main source of fuel for various vehicles, ever since horse-drawn carriages first went out of fashion. I mean the word gasoline itself literally means, “fuel for automobiles” in the Oxford dictionary. So naturally gasoline has been used to power cars, motorbikes, trucks, boats, jets, and several other transport vehicles. However, if gasoline is so important to our tech-savvy 21st century, is it possible to imagine a future where gasoline is no longer used as a fuel source, short of nuclear annihilation? Can gasoline be replaced as a primary fuel source? Well an article from the Southern California gas company seems to think so, naming the ultimate successor to gasoline to be… natural gas. So first of all, what is the difference between the two? Well, both gasoline and natural gas are just a bunch of hydrogen and carbon atoms bonded together. What sets the two apart however, is that gasoline is made up of 8 carbon atoms held together by 18 hydrogen atoms, while natural gas is merely 1 carbon atom, attached to 4 hydrogen atoms. So basically, natural gas is a lot lighter than gasoline. Why then, is natural gas a better fuel source to use then gasoline? According to the article, vehicles that run on natural gas emit 10-20% less greenhouse gases than gasoline powered vehicles. When burned, natural gas will only produce 5-10% of CO2 that gasoline produces. It is also a lot cheaper to supply because unlike gasoline, natural gas can be used upon extraction with no refining needed. So why has gasoline not already been replaced with natural gas? Well, because even though natural gas is cheaper to extract doesn't mean that’s it cheaper to store in vehicles. Compressing natural gas alone requires a much bigger holding tank when gasoline can provide the same amount of energy in a smaller tank. There is also the sad reality that there are very few vehicles in existence that run on natural gas since there is no economic guarantee that the majority of a country’s population would transition between the two fuels. So the question of the article this time is: Is natural gas the way to go or should society stick with gasoline for now and simply wait for a more efficient fuel alternative to take of like say, electric cars?

Source:

S. (Ed.). (2010). Benefits of Natural Gas Vehicles. Retrieved from https://www.socalgas.com/for-your-business/natural-gas-vehicles/benefits

A (Brief) History of Oil Spills

One of the biggest examples of a pollutant entering water and having a significant effect on the water’s quality in the modern day is oil. Oil often spills out into the ocean from oil tankers, offshore oil platforms, and underwater drilling sites, due to maritime accidents or leaks. However, oil can also leak into lakes and rivers from land sources such as oil wells, drill sites and sometimes from car accidents in the form of gasoline. When oil makes enters huge bodies of water, such as oceans, it tends to accumulate on the surface, which puts several species of birds and animals at risk. Oil can often soak into the feathers of a bird it makes contact with, resulting in the bird going blind and being unable to fly, use its sense of smell, or even float on the surface properly. Marine fish that live close to the surface of the ocean could end up accidentally inhaling the oil through their gills or even mistake it for food, effectively poisoning itself. Oil spills on land could end up degrading air quality or even leak into underground water systems which can contaminate sources of drinking water. But just how much oil have humans lost to the oceans at a single period of time? Well I found an article that goes over the 9 biggest oil spills in human history and the volume of oil that was lost was astounding. I’m not going to go over all 9 events in detail as I’ll just be reiterating what the article already says, but I will mention the one that really caught my attention. For example, the second largest oil spill in history occurred in 2010! Nearly 9 years ago! On April 20th 2010, an offshore water platform in the gulf of Mexico sank into the ocean after a well containing natural gas burst, resulting in the gas spilling out and igniting. The resulting fire killed 11 workers and injured 17 others before the platform sank into the ocean two days later, taking an estimated 134 gallons of oil with it. The oil spill wouldn’t be fixed until September 17th. This means that the entire Gulf coast from Texas Texas to Florida was completely coated in oil for nearly 5 months. So a question that I have for this week is: If such an incident happened only 9 years ago then what does this tell you about the efficiency of the prevention methods we have in place today and how could they be improved?

Citations: Rafferty, J. P. (2018). 9 of the Biggest Oil Spills in History. Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/list/9-of-the-biggest-oil-spills-in-history

The Presence of Chlorine in Swimming Pools

Chlorine is a chemical element that is so commonly used in modern society that most children first learn of its existence long before they enter a grade 9 science class. The most obvious example of a real life industry that often uses chlorine as a major resource would be public swimming pools. Pool centers regularly dissolve large samples of chlorine in their waters because of sanitary reasons. But, what are those sanitary reasons? What would happen if pools were not chlorinated? Is chlorinated water harmful to humans?

I recently found an article by the Healthy Home Economist that answers all of the above questions. The article explains that the reason why public pools are chlorinated is for three major reasons: One, because the chlorine kills any bacteria that enters the pool. Two, the chlorine keeps the pool fresh by oxidizing out any outside elements or bodily germs. Three, the chlorine prevents algae from forming in the pool overtime. Since pools are not connected to the ocean like many natural bodies of water are, the absence of chlorine can cause bacteria and hazardous substance to start building up in the pool, putting swimmers at risk of contracting waterborne diseases. However, chlorine itself can also pose as a health risk. The article mentions that some side effects from overexposure to chlorinated water are : red eyes, permanent wrinkles, dry skin, respiratory problems, skin rashes, pregnancy problems for women and in some cases, hair loss.  Also cancer, like every other thing today apparently. The article also mentions that despite the existence of alternative oxidiser such as bromine, ionizers and silver-copper which are just as successful at keeping pools sanitized without all the side effects, chlorine still remains the top most used pool sanitizer mostly because it’s much cheaper to attain than its counterparts.

One interesting thing that I read in the article was it’s point on how too much chlorine exposure could lead to hair loss. When the article pointed to Olympic swimmers as a reference I suddenly realized that yes, a lot of the men that I’ve seen participate in competitive or professional swimming are often bald and wrinkly despite being in their 30’s. Another interesting thing in the article was when it explained why indoor public pools could be hazardous to human health. The short answer could be summed up to chlorine giving off gas that gets trapped in an indoor location and eventually building up enough causing a foul odor. However, the way that the article explains this is by using delicious chemistry terms such as Nitrogen Trichloride precipitating in the air or chlorine entering a chemical reaction when coming into contact with ammonium to produce chloramines due to excess amount of sweat. Such language is almost tempting enough to warrant spending time on writing out a balanced chemical equation with the limiting reagent and percent yield included. Almost tempting enough. Anyway, the question that I have for you, my lovely readers this week is: What do you think is a better, healthier, option to swim in? A public swimming pool, a lake, a river or, an ocean?

Citations:

Love, Sandrine. “The Dangers of Chlorinated Pools and How to Protect Yourself - Healthy Home Economist.” The Healthy Home Economist, The Healthy Home Economist, 13 June 2018, www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.com/the-dangers-of-chlorinated-pools-and-how-to-protect-yourself/.

Exploring the Aluminum Industry

Exploring the Aluminum Industry

Aluminum, once an element only owned by the rich, has now become a common everyday materials that can be found in satellites, jewelry, eyeglass frames, optical instruments, tableware, foil, and is a major component of basic house building. So with such an important element there always comes an industry that adheres the classical law of supply and demand. According to a journal by the the National Center for Biotechnology Information(NCBI), aluminum production comes from the mining of raw ore before the actual Aluminum metal itself is extracted through various industrial process such as refining and smelting. The journal then goes into more detail about all three process and the associated health risks that come with them as well as the overall impact that aluminum extraction has on the climate. Some of the possible health hazards mentioned in the article were: heat stress, hearing loss, musculoskeletal disorders, respiratory problems, lung disease, cancer, ETC. The impacts that aluminum extraction has on the environment were said to be industrial emission of airborne chemicals that can contaminate nearby waters and soil while putting the nearby community at risk of developing acute cancer.

Something that I found interesting about the article is when they mentioned the possibility of developing technology that could lead to a new aluminum extraction process called carborthermic production of aluminum which could lead to energy savings which could lead to the Aluminum industry saving 21% of energy on a yearly while also extracting purer versions of Aluminum. Despite all the problems that come with extracting Aluminum both internally and externally I still believe that this industry must be allowed to continue to develop considering how important Aluminum is in housewares. Besides we can all rest easy knowing that there are in fact plenty of prevention methods put in place over the years, such the personal protective equipment act (PPE) or the powered air purifying act (PPAP) that severely reduces the risk of health hazards mentioned in this journal. Now a question that I would have for my readers would be: What do you think should be done to improve workroom safety in the aluminum industry?

Sources;

Wesdock, James C., and Ian M. F. Arnold. “Occupational and Environmental Health in the Aluminum Industry.” Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, vol. 56, 8 May 2014, doi:10.1097/jom.0000000000000071.

The Ethics of Alcohol

The Ethics of Alcohol

Ethanol is a commonly used chemical substance in modern society. It is the main component to almost all alcoholic beverages like beer and wine. Ethanol can described as a colourless liquid that has a high solubility rate in water and other organic compounds.  Ethanol is a covalent compound made up of carbon, hydrogen and hydroxide which bond to create C2H5OH. In this post I will be discussing the risks and benefits of alcohol consumption and the ethanol that is present within it.

In an article posted by Drugs.com the subject of alcohol and its risks/benefits are discussed. The article begins with a brief summary of what alcohol is and how many grams of ethanol have to be present to equal 1 drink. The article then moves on to address the health hazards of alcohol consumption. It states that even in moderate doses alcohol consumption can lead to an increased risk of colon, rectum, liver, mouth, throat or breast cancer developing. The article also states that abuse of alcohol can lead to psychiatric problems like anxiety, depression and a decrease in social skills. The article then counters this point with describing the positive effects of alcohol consumption. The article mentions that small doses of alcoholic beverages like wine can help reduce the risk of heart diseases and help prevent the formation of blood clots. The article then concludes with treatment options for alcoholism.

After reading this article I believe that alcohol is a substance that brings more harm than good when it comes to human health. However, I don’t believe that alcohol should be treated as a hazardous substance that should be fought against, because in reality, it isn’t any more evil than fire or water. The main problem is that people are proving to be incapable of controlling their consumption rate of alcohol just like young children are incapable of understanding the dangers of playing with fire. So in my opinion despite all the negative health consequences that alcohol presents, it should still be made as accessible as water and fire is currently.

My question would be, do you believe that alcohol distribution and accessibility needs to be more government controlled. Or, do you think that alcohol products should be made more accessible and trust the population to make their own choices regarding their health?

Citations:

“The Risks and Benefits of Drinking Alcohol.” Product Reviews and Ratings - Consumer Reports, Consumer Reports , June 2010, www.consumerreports.org/cro/2013/01/the-risks-and-benefits-of-drinking-alcohol/index.htm.

“Alcohol (Ethanol) Effects, Hazards & Warnings.” Drugs.com, Drugs.com, 2 Apr. 2018, www.drugs.com/alcohol.htm.