Analysis Of Energy Sources For Human Sustainability

Analysis of Energy Sources for Human Sustainability

For this assignment, you will write a 1-page lab report using the scientific method. When your lab report is complete – submit it in the classroom. Part I: Using the lab animation, fill in the data table below to gather your data, and use it to help you generate your hypothesis, outcomes, and analysis. Energy Source Fuel (Coal)/Uranium Needed (tons) CO2 Emissions (tons) Sulfur Dioxide and Other Emissions (tons) Radioactivity mSv (millisievert) Solid Waste (tons) Accidents Coal Q,.75 mil 75,.25 mSv 150,000 Coal Q.25 mil 3.5 mil 150,.5 mSv 300,000 Health Impairments Coal Q.875 mil 5.25 mil 225,.75 mSv 450,000 Worker Fatalities Coal Q,5 mil 7 mil 300, mSv 600,000 Fire Destruction Nuclear Q,750 / 7.,.0025 mSv 62.5 Nuclear Q,500 / ,.005 mSv 125 Nuclear Q,250 / 22.,.0075 mSv 187.5 Minor Emissions Nuclear Q,000 / ,.01 mSv 250 Catastrophic releases leading to radiation sickness, death, and environmental contamination Question: Given that the current 2 primary sources of electricity generation are coal and nuclear power plants, which of these sources is better for human sustainability? Part II: Write a 1-page lab report using the following scientific method sections: · Purpose · State the purpose of the lab. · Introduction · This is an investigation of what is currently known about the question being asked. Use background information from credible references to write a short summary about concepts in the lab. List and cite references in APA style. · Hypothesis/Predicted Outcome · A hypothesis is an educated guess. Based on what you have learned and written about in the Introduction, state what you expect to be the results of the lab procedures. · Methods · Summarize the procedures that you used in the lab. The Methods section should also state clearly how data (numbers) were collected during the lab; this will be reported in the Results/Outcome section. · Results/Outcome · Provide here any results or data that were generated while doing the lab procedure. · Discussion/Analysis · In this section, state clearly whether you obtained the expected results. Also discuss the results and what you learned from this lab. · Note: You can use the lab data to help you discuss the results and what you learned. Provide references in APA format. This includes a reference list and in-text citations for references used in the Introduction section. Give your paper a title, and identify each section as specified above. Although the hypothesis will be a 1-sentence answer, the other sections will need to be paragraphs to adequately explain your experiment.

Paper For Above instruction

Title: Analysis of Energy Sources for Human Sustainability

Purpose

The purpose of this lab was to analyze and compare the environmental and health impacts of coal and nuclear power as primary sources of electricity generation. By examining various emission metrics, radioactive exposure, waste generation, and accident data, the goal was to determine which energy source offers better sustainability for human health and environmental preservation.

Introduction

Energy production plays a crucial role in modern society, accompanied by environmental and health considerations. Traditionally, fossil fuels like coal have been dominant due to their abundance and economic cost; however, coal-based energy generation is associated with significant air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, and health risks (Wright, 2008). Nuclear power, on the other hand, produces minimal air pollutants but introduces concerns related to radioactive waste and potential catastrophic accidents. The debate on sustainability involves assessing these impacts comprehensively. Coal combustion releases large quantities of carbon dioxide (CO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and particulates, leading to air pollution and climate change. Nuclear power produces low greenhouse gases but raises issues about radioactive waste management and accident risks. Understanding these factors is vital for evaluating the sustainability of each energy source.

References:

• Wright, R. T. (2008). Environmental Science: Toward a sustainable future. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Hypothesis/Predicted Outcome

Based on the environmental impacts and safety data, it is hypothesized that nuclear power will be considered more sustainable for human health than coal. This prediction is driven by nuclear power's lower greenhouse gas emissions, minimal air pollutants, and relatively manageable radioactive exposure in comparison to the extensive emissions, health hazards, and environmental damage caused by coal combustion.

Methods

The data utilized in this study were extracted from the provided lab animation and data table, which included metrics such as fuel needed, CO2 emissions, sulfur dioxide emissions, radioactivity exposure, solid waste, and accidents for both coal and nuclear energy sources. Data collection involved recording the numerical values associated with various environmental and health impacts. The analysis involved comparing these metrics to evaluate which energy source showed fewer detrimental effects in terms of emissions, waste, accidents, and radiation exposure.

Results/Outcome

The analysis of the data indicated that coal power generates significantly higher levels of CO2 emissions (75 to 7 million tons) and sulfur dioxide (ranging from 0.25 to 5.25 million tons), as well as a higher number of worker fatalities and health impairments compared to nuclear power. Nuclear energy, while producing low levels of radioactivity (0.0025 to 0.01 mSv), results in minimal emissions and waste, with the lowest associated fatalities and accidents. Specifically, nuclear power's minimal emissions and accidents suggest a reduced environmental and health impact, despite the concerns over radioactive waste and catastrophic releases. Overall, the data supported the hypothesis that nuclear power is more sustainable in terms of human health and environmental impact than coal.

Discussion/Analysis

The findings from the data support the prediction that nuclear energy offers a more sustainable alternative for human health than coal-based energy. The high emissions and associated health hazards of coal power are well-documented, contributing to air pollution, respiratory illnesses, and climate change (Wright, 2008). Conversely, nuclear energy provides a cleaner profile with negligible greenhouse gases and lower accident-related fatalities. Nevertheless, nuclear power's sustainability is challenged by concerns about radioactive waste disposal and the potential for catastrophic accidents, which require rigorous safety standards and long-term management strategies. The data also emphasize that advancements in nuclear technology could further mitigate environmental impacts. Overall, transitioning from coal to nuclear energy could be a pragmatic step toward achieving a more sustainable future, balancing energy needs with environmental protection.

References

• Wright, R. T. (2008). Environmental Science: Toward a sustainable future. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.