Roundtable Discussion Summary

The main discussion topic for group 1 was biofuel being a replacement for fossil fuel. The for side argued that biofuel is a cheaper, cleaner and a more advance alternative source of power. Some key points mentioned was that biofuel is environmentally friendly as it uses food crops. Countries that adopt this technology could also generate jobs and revenue through the ever growing biofuel technology. However, biofuel also have its cons; it is not 100% environmentally friendly as it may cause water pollution.Furthermore, a large area of land and fertilizers is needed for the cultivation of the biofuel crops. Therefore, biofuel technology is not very applicable to small countries such as Singapore. Based on the discussion, I feel that biofuel technology is mainly resource dependent making it less attractive; meaning it requires lots of land resources, manpower and time to cultivate the biofuels.

The second group discussed about green chemistry which involves "green" recycling of materials such as plastics.By adopting green chemistry, wastes such as gas emissions and pollutants from power plants could be bio degenerated into a more useful material such as strong carbon microsphere. On the other hand, the against side disagreed to the advantages of green chemistry due to cost and effectiveness. They argue that this technology is expensive and difficult to sustain especially during economic crisis times. I agree with the against side as economic influence is a major contribution to decide on a particular technology. In this case, green chemistry is too expensive to start with.

Th last group discussed about low-pressure carbon filter process technology. Basically it is a form of carbon capture and storage. The for side suggests to implement this technology so as to reduce the carbon dioxide emission from power plants and other carbon dioxide emitting industries. They also illustrated the schematic diagram of the technology and explain how it could extract useful carbon dioxide and recycle them for use in enhancing oil and methane recovery. However, the against side argued the the sustainability of this technology. This technology involves a great deal of restructuring and advance infrastructure. One of point of argument was the complexity of the pipelines network; it could cause leakage and disasters if not well maintained and sustained. Both the for and against sides have good points of arguments however, the against side's points were not concrete enough. They fail to explain and give examples of how the technology is a failure. On the contrary, the for side did a better job in providing facts and example of the advantages of this technology.