It has been argued that chemical engineering has done more to protect the whale, than any environmental group, and,
after giving it some thought, I think it may well be true! The cartoon
on the left shows sperm whale celebrating the discovery of petroleum and
a method for its distillation to kerosene, thereby increasing their
collective lifespans! It might be difficult to imagine today, but the oil that we typically extract from the sea bed or the deserts of the Middle East and North Africa, used to be swimming around in the oceans of the world! Let me begin with a few dates and events that will focus your minds:
- Large scale commercial whaling is in full flow at the turn of the 18th century, peaking in the late 1850s
- The Industrial Revolution in the UK gathers momentum between 1780 and 1840, by 1850, it is "full steam ahead"
- In 1849, Abraham Gesner devises a method for distilling kerosene from petroleum (rock oil: petra (Greek) + oleum (Latin))
- In
1859 New Bedford (near Cape Cod, Massachusetts) is the wealthiest town
(per capita) in the USA and in the UK, from time to time in the 19th
century, it is Liverpool. Both seafaring towns were at the centre of the
whaling industry; on opposite sides of the Atlantic
- Just to the East of Massachusetts, in Pennsylvania, in the same year (1859), the first serious oil well yields crude oil, and thus begins the age of gasoline and petroleum
- In 1972 the sperm whale is declared an endangered species "and the
loss of whale oil had a profound impact in the automotive industry,
where for example, transmission failures rose from under 1 million in
1972 to over 8 million by 1975"
- In 1986, the International Whaling Commission banned all commercial whaling: however
whaling for scientific research remains legal
These
events made me realise something I had not thought of before, how was
farm machinery lubricated and what was burned in oil lamps before Edwin
Drake struck "gold" in Pennsylvania? The claim in the first paragraph is
simply a reflection of the fact that the global growth of industrial
nations was oiled and fueled by the dominance of petroleum products over
whale oil. As a result, the number of whales killed for oil decreased
massively: in 1846, 735 whaling ships are documented, but by 1876, only
39 remained. So what do these "molecules" look like and why are they so
useful?
This month's molecule(s) are the molecules that provide the fuel for human endeavour. Let's begin with sperm oil, or spermaceti.
The image on the left shows the organ found in the head of the sperm
whale from which sperm oil is extracted. It isn't clear what role this
organ plays in whale physiology, but buoyancy is one popular theory and
echo-location another. The major product of this organ has the structure shown below (which is closely related to jojoba oil.
During the boom years of the whaling industry, sperm whale oil, including spermaceti, was used in lamps since it burned bright and was relatively odourless.
It
was also prized since it retained its viscosity over a wide range of
temperatures. The market for sperm oil reached a peak in the 1840s, but
it was shortly to be replaced by kerosene (its American name) or paraffin (the UK name). The structure of kerosene, or dodecane is shown above: it is an alkane, isolated from petroleum and with the discovery of oil fields in Pennsylvania the second half of the 19th century, the demand for whale oil crashed; and with it the whaling industry.
The related product of the fractional distillation of petroleum is
gasoline (USA), or petrol (UK). In its pure form, petrol is the
hydrocarbon octane, which, when combusted to water and carbon dioxide, generates sufficient energy, when harnessed by the internal combustion engine, to power motor cars (or automobiles!). The thrust needed to propel a rocket can be provided
by the combustion of kerosene (the fuel is usually combined with liquid
oxygen in the "classic" rocket engine). So as the 19th century rolled
over into the twentieth, virtually all of our fuel came from coal mines and oil wells. And so it remains, as we attempt to grapple with alternatives from nuclear power to modern windmills.
Why have I focused on these molecules for October? Well they illustrate the relationship between organic chemistry, physical chemistry and combustion. I am sure you will appreciate the challenges of harnessing the energy of such fuels: just think of the safety measures surrounding a typical rocket launch or the devastation caused by an exploding petrol tank in a car. Living organisms, such as aerobic mammals, are required to fuel their physiological functions at modest temperatures and pressures. You can read about the discovery of metabolic pathways in one of my earlier posts. See (RHS) what can happen if our own fuel molecules catch fire spontaneously! How much energy is required by a typical human to walk, say 5km, compared with an average car (let's assume we calculate on the basis of per km traveled per kg body (or machine) mass)? Such calculations are complex and require considerations relating to the energy input to develop the human, or to build the car. But the simple calculation for an average person versus and average car is that in petrol terms we can cover around 500km per gallon equivalent, compared with around 80km per gallon for a car. However, the time taken to cover say 5km by the fastest runner is around 13 minutes, considerably slower than a car which can easily cover 5km in 2-3 minutes. For comparison jet planes and a rockets cruise at speeds of 20km and 300km per minute respectively (very approximate figures). (If you are interested in the metrics and economics of fuel consumption and transport, take a look here: it is of fundamental importance for the sustainability of the planet!). What's my point? The fuels that we use to power engines are typically alkanes, but the fuels we make use of are sugars, fats and proteins. Engineers have developed engines and associated fuel tanks in order to make the combustion of alkanes safe and efficient, but unfortunately not sustainable (any more). Can we bridge this Chemistry-Biology gap?
Since the pioneering
years of the subject, Biochemists have been fascinated with
understanding how food is converted into energy and growth. It is clear
that biological energy transformation, whether it is in photosynthesising plants or respiring mammals, is highly sophisticated and can teach us important lessons about efficient conversion of fuel into energy. The important objective is to make any new energy source affordable and clean. At the
start I said that Chemical Engineers have done more to save the whale
than environmentalists, and today Chemical Engineers are increasingly
turning to Biology in order to develop the fuels and engines of the future. One of the aims of Synthetic Biology (a hybrid field in which Molecular Biologists and Engineers are collaborating extensively) is the replacement of the inefficient Biofuels found in Nature, with those more familiar to engineers. This is being approached by engineering organisms to produce the kinds of molecules that we have come to rely on for domestic transport and for heating our homes.Examples of organisations that are investing in this area include the JCV Institute, articles are regularly appearing in the News, and such issues are high on our own government's agenda.
The start of every academic term coincides with the build up to the October announcement of the Nobel Prizes in the fields of Chemistry, Physics and Medicine (or Physiology), Peace, Literature and, a more recent addition, Economics. I remember vividly, the first year at the UTC, when we had a live stream of the Stockholm announcements as they were broadcast on the Monday (Medicine or Physiology), Tuesday (Physics) and Wednesday (Chemistry) of the first week in October. The Principle, Mr Lloyd, had received a motivational email from Sir Rich Roberts (Nobel Prize for the discovery of split genes in humans) and the Y12s were getting ready to start a lab class.
When I realised we could stream the broadcast video, I was feeling pretty pleased with myself, but the announcement was delayed, and delayed, and then I realised it would be in Swedish! However, out of the blue, the spokesperson for the committee appeared dramatically and announced the winning discovery of the trafficking of cellular components. In English! What I didn't expect was what happened next. The class broke into a spontaneous round of applause. I was flabbergasted! I think that was the moment when I realised how important it was for me to spend time working with students and staff at the UTC, to try and understand how best to capture that enthusiasm for Science. I couldn't have scripted it! The next year we were a little better organised and the tradition of celebrating the three Science awards is something I wouldn't miss for anything.
Why do I think the Nobel Prize is so important in Science: after all there are many who think it has a negative impact? It is a little like the impact of the Olympics, or the World Cup. It is probably because it is a landmark event that places Science (as opposed to Sport) firmly in the public eye for a week (or at least three days), assuming there are no competing world events! It is also a celebration of outstanding scientific achievements, that (even if you might disagree on who gets left out) seems to transcend Nationality. Since we are bombarded every day with arguments over sovereignty and borders, the Nobel Prize recognises scientific achievements irrespective of the nationality of the winners. It is certainly true that some countries have been more successful than others, but the nationality of Nobel laureates, unlike that of Olympic medal winners, is much less a part of the celebration. (Some would say I am being a little naive here!)
The original criteria for the award of a Nobel Prize included an assessment of the "impact" of a discovery in the year it was made. Or as Alfred Nobel put it: "those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind". In addition, it was more common in the early years for individuals to be awarded the Prize. Today, Science is increasingly a team effort and multi-disciplinary, making it more common for two or even three individuals to share the spoils. (A maximum of three laureates can share a prize). Moreover, it is not surprising that the committee tends to let the discovery "bed down" for a few years, just in case...
I always ask new undergraduates of UCAS applicants to tell me about their "favourite" Nobel Prize winner or the discovery. You wont be surprised to hear it is mainly Watson and Crick. I now preface my question with: "apart from Watson and Crick...". not that it isn't in my top 5, but it makes the discussion more interesting....for me! I find the Nobel Prize role of honours an excellent starting point for tutorial discussions with students and I would recommend all students at the UTC take a look at the Nobel Foundation and read about the winners and their stories: it will not only help with University interviews, but I hope it will prove as fascinating to you as it does to me.
Before I go, who do I think will among be this year's recipients? The discoverers of Gravitational waves? The application of a bacterial defence system to the edit human genes: CRISPR? Or will it be recognition at last of the chemistry behind lap top (Lithium) batteries? Whoever wins, I look forward to talking to you all about the science behind the 2016 Nobel Prizes!
It has been argued that chemical engineering has done more to protect the whale, than any environmental group, and,
after giving it some thought, I think it may well be true! The cartoon
on the left shows sperm whale celebrating the discovery of petroleum and
a method for its distillation to kerosene, thereby increasing their
collective lifespans! It might be difficult to imagine today, but the oil that we typically extract from the sea bed or the deserts of the Middle East and North Africa, used to be swimming around in the oceans of the world! Let me begin with a few dates and events that will focus your minds:
Why have I focused on these molecules for October? Well they illustrate the relationship between organic chemistry, physical chemistry and combustion. I am sure you will appreciate the challenges of harnessing the energy of such fuels: just think of the safety measures surrounding a typical rocket launch or the devastation caused by an exploding petrol tank in a car. Living organisms, such as aerobic mammals, are required to fuel their physiological functions at modest temperatures and pressures. You can read about the discovery of metabolic pathways in one of my earlier posts. See (RHS) what can happen if our own fuel molecules catch fire spontaneously! How much energy is required by a typical human to walk, say 5km, compared with an average car (let's assume we calculate on the basis of per km traveled per kg body (or machine) mass)? Such calculations are complex and require considerations relating to the energy input to develop the human, or to build the car. But the simple calculation for an average person versus and average car is that in petrol terms we can cover around 500km per gallon equivalent, compared with around 80km per gallon for a car. However, the time taken to cover say 5km by the fastest runner is around 13 minutes, considerably slower than a car which can easily cover 5km in 2-3 minutes. For comparison jet planes and a rockets cruise at speeds of 20km and 300km per minute respectively (very approximate figures). (If you are interested in the metrics and economics of fuel consumption and transport, take a look here: it is of fundamental importance for the sustainability of the planet!). What's my point? The fuels that we use to power engines are typically alkanes, but the fuels we make use of are sugars, fats and proteins. Engineers have developed engines and associated fuel tanks in order to make the combustion of alkanes safe and efficient, but unfortunately not sustainable (any more). Can we bridge this Chemistry-Biology gap?