Free Purpose: To Understand The Differences Between Non-Renewable Energy Resources And Their Impact On The Environment Essay Example

Analysis of Energy Sources

Introduction
There are many different types of ways to get energy. Hydroelectric, wind, and solar offer renewable forms of energy. However, these are not as widely used as coal, petroleum and nuclear energy. Both fossil fuel and nuclear offer serveral advantages but from an environmental and health and safety point of view which one is better? Here we are presented with a simulation over a period of a year to observe the environmental impact of coal and uranium.

Hypothesis: Nuclear energy is a better source has less environmental damage than fossil fuels

Results
Over a year it was shown how much solid fuel is needed to convert coal or uranium into energy. It also shows the outcome in terms of emissions, solid waste and accidents. To produce energy from coal a lot more solid fuel from strip mining is needed. Over time much CO2 and Sulfur dioxide is generated which leads to acid rain. Interestingly, it generates a lot of radioactivity shown in mSv which means the possibility of a person developing cancer. Over a year at the second quarter accidents start happening and wide environmental damage starts.
Using Uranium as an energy source showed that there was less CO2 emmission and no sulfur dioxide emission. Surprisingly, there was less radioactivity overall produced from the nuclear power plant. It also showed less accidents and solid waste needed to clean.

Discussion

Overall Uranium as a fuel source was much safer on the environment and on workers than the coal burning plant. It also produced less waste. Coal plants can be quite old and many use old technology. New technologies are being developed to make coal ‘clean’ but many of these have largely failed in past initiatives (Franco, 2009). Currently there are a lof negative connotations (Pidgeon, 2008) towards nuclear energy even though it is safer than fossil fuels. Possibly people see Fukushima or Chenobyl type accident as these are the most reported incidences. Nuclear power plants could likely be used until a more reliable source of energy comes along.
Both coal and nuclear energy both pollute with nuclear power offer a slight advantage. One drawback not mentioned is that radioactive waste has to be stored for a long time. Our hypothesis proved to be correct. Although it was not stated there would be two things that were not quite clear in the simulation: 1. how much energy was actually produced from each 2. why did the accidents occur over time. This could give a better perspective of the energy policy in a country and how people feel about installing a nuclear power plant vs. a coal burning plant.

References

Franco, A., & Diaz, A. R. (2009). The future challenges for “clean coal technologies”: joining efficiency increase and pollutant emission control. Energy, 34(3), 348-354.
Pidgeon, N. F., Lorenzoni, I., & Poortinga, W. (2008). Climate change or nuclear power—No thanks! A quantitative study of public perceptions and risk framing in Britain. Global Environmental Change, 18(1), 69-85.