Compare and contrast the processes involved in generating electricity from burning fossil fuels or from nuclear reactors. Are nuclear reactors the answer to global warming?
The costs of nuclear when considering the mining, processing, building of the power plant, transport costs, safe storage costs, fuel reprocessing costs are very high. Figures gioven by the IAEA are based on best idealistic scenarios. Nuclear is more expensive and has too many downstream problems. Ultimately when all costs are considered including environmental costs, renewables are cheaper.
Lai Ying - the energy used in the uranium fuel cycle appears to be deliberately hidden from the public by the IAEA. Proponents of nuclear energy are vague on detail whilst commenting on how the emissions of the overall fuel cycle are lower than pV technology and eqivalent to wind energy. Perhaps you should comment upon the lack of publications in your essay. Thermochemical equations for uranium processing could be a useful aid. Common sense (use of logic) should benefit your arguments about the greenhouse emissions from the fuel cycle.
Also - sorry about the incessant questions - but the criteria sheet says the assignment needs to be in 'essay' form. Does that mean it needs to be one whole essay (like, without subheadings, etc. - think English essay sort-of) or is it basically just like the Water assignment we had last year?
To the first question, if you show that you can calculate an enthalpy change to support a theoretical value wouldn't this demonstrate more understanding of content?
Secondly about subheadings. I prefer not to have them but the criteria doesn't discriminate against them.
For the second part of the assignment, do we need to talk about how global warming works or do we just say something like "CO2 contributes to global warming; burning coal releases CO2" and then talk about CO2 in relation to coal, without going into the details of radiative forcing, etc.?
9 comments:
The costs of nuclear when considering the mining, processing, building of the power plant, transport costs, safe storage costs, fuel reprocessing costs are very high. Figures gioven by the IAEA are based on best idealistic scenarios. Nuclear is more expensive and has too many downstream problems. Ultimately when all costs are considered including environmental costs, renewables are cheaper.
Do we need to compare the energy used to manufacture the fuel (uranium-235) with the amount of energy one atom produces via fission?
Lai Ying - the energy used in the uranium fuel cycle appears to be deliberately hidden from the public by the IAEA. Proponents of nuclear energy are vague on detail whilst commenting on how the emissions of the overall fuel cycle are lower than pV technology and eqivalent to wind energy. Perhaps you should comment upon the lack of publications in your essay. Thermochemical equations for uranium processing could be a useful aid. Common sense (use of logic) should benefit your arguments about the greenhouse emissions from the fuel cycle.
Comments on comparisons should reflect real world usage.
Do we need to calculate the enthalpy energy of coal/uranium ourselves, or will finding the value on a website/source be enough?
Also - sorry about the incessant questions - but the criteria sheet says the assignment needs to be in 'essay' form. Does that mean it needs to be one whole essay (like, without subheadings, etc. - think English essay sort-of) or is it basically just like the Water assignment we had last year?
To the first question, if you show that you can calculate an enthalpy change to support a theoretical value wouldn't this demonstrate more understanding of content?
Secondly about subheadings. I prefer not to have them but the criteria doesn't discriminate against them.
Hi Mr Hal
For the second part of the assignment, do we need to talk about how global warming works or do we just say something like "CO2 contributes to global warming; burning coal releases CO2" and then talk about CO2 in relation to coal, without going into the details of radiative forcing, etc.?
Thanks
Hi Lai-Ying, it would be enough to state the scientific consensus without providing an explanation so that you can stick to your topic.
Post a Comment