No clue about this problem (Saving the Earth.)

  • Thread starter Thread starter zero000
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Earth
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the energy requirements for lowering sea levels by moving sand from the ocean to dry land as a response to global warming. To estimate the energy needed to lower sea levels by 1 cm, participants calculate the volume of sand based on Earth's surface area and the density of sand at 2000 kg/m³. The work required to lift this mass by 10 meters, considering a 20% efficiency rate, reveals that the energy consumption would be significantly higher than the total energy used by civilization in one year. Ultimately, the feasibility of this approach is questioned, as it does not create new land above sea level.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of basic physics concepts, specifically work and energy calculations.
  • Familiarity with the density of materials, particularly sand (2000 kg/m³).
  • Knowledge of efficiency rates in energy processes (20% efficiency).
  • Ability to calculate surface area of a sphere and volume of displaced materials.
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the physics of work and energy, focusing on gravitational potential energy calculations.
  • Explore the implications of global warming on sea level rise and potential mitigation strategies.
  • Investigate alternative methods for land reclamation and their environmental impacts.
  • Examine energy consumption statistics of civilization to contextualize the findings.
USEFUL FOR

Environmental scientists, civil engineers, policy makers, and anyone interested in innovative solutions for climate change and sea level management.

zero000
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Global warming problem (Saving the Earth.)

This is the problem:
The Earth's oceans have risen by 20 centimeters over the last 50 years. Suppose that global warming and the rise of the Earth's oceans becomes inevitable, and our only option is to find ways to lower the sea level. One option would be to dig sand from underneath the ocean and place it on dry land. This process requires energy because the sand is being raised to a higher gravitational potential energy. Estimate how much energy would be required to lower the sea level by 1 cm. Assume that the sand is raised by a height of 10 meters, that the density of sand is 2000 kilograms per cubic meter, and that the whole process uses energy at 20 percent efficiency. How does this amount of energy compare to the total energy used by civilization in one year? How much new land would be created? Note: Approximate freely as needed.

I have no clue to where i should even start. I've been sittin, starring, trying to figure it out, but the way the prof doesn't give us any notes or anything - i doubt that i can get anywhere with this. any help is appreciatedd
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
The oceans cover about 70% of the surface of the Earth, so you need to find the surface area of a sphere the size of Earth and take 0.7 of that. If you multiply that area by a thickness of 1 cm. = 0.01 m, you will have an estimate of the volume of sand that would need to be moved.

You are given a density for sand, so you can find the mass of sand that has to be moved.

The energy required to move all this mass is taken to be the work required to lift its weight by a distance of 10 meters (I've no idea why this number is chosen -- the average ocean depth is 1 kilometer!). Since the process does this work at 20% efficiency, that means 5 times as much energy is consumed from the fuel source than is used to actually do this work.

I don't know what the intent of the question about the "new land created" is. It seems to me that if you're dumping this sand on dry land, you aren't adding any new surface area above the water level.

You will find that, for the amount of energy required to do this, this proposal is a pretty dumb idea...
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
7K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 53 ·
2
Replies
53
Views
14K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
3K