Lab Analysis of the Non-renewable Sources of Energy

LabAnalysis of the Non-renewable Sources of Energy

Author’sName

LabAnalysis of the Non-renewable Sources of Energy

Energy Source

Fuel (Coal)/Uranium Needed (tons)

CO2 Emissions (tons)

Sulfur Dioxide and Other Emissions (tons)

Radioactivity mSv (millisievert)

Solid Waste (tons)

Accidents

Quarter 1

Coal

625,000

1.8mil

76,000

0.30

155,500

Not Applicable

Nuclear

19,000

53,000

0.0

0.0030

63.0

Not Applicable

Quarter 2

Coal

1.65mil

4.5mil

150,000

0.75

295,500

Impairment of health

Nuclear

38,000/15

103,000

0

0.0025

63.0

N/A

Quarter 3

Coal

1.880

5.75mil

225,500

1

600, 500

Fatalities of the workers

Nuclear

57,325/21.5

158,000

0

0.0075

185.5

Minor emissions

Quarter 4

Coal

3.0mil

8mil

250,000

1

595,000

Fire destructions

Nuclear

80,000/30

215,000

0

0.01

245

Catastrophic emissions resulting in radiation

Purpose

Toshow the level of pollutants emitted into the atmosphere

Toshow the number of tons of fuel required to keep the source of energyin operation

Todetermine the source of energy, that is more economical

Todetermine the energy source with less environmental impact

Dueto the implications of the rise in the global warming and otheradverse environmental effects of the sources of energy, it isparamount to find out the other options of sources of energy, whichare not too harmful to the environment (Bredesen, 2014). Nuclear andcoal both have adverse environmental effects. The pollution and theclimate modifications induced by people are usually a global drawback(Motsamai,2010).Nonetheless, coal is more harmful to the environment as it emitssulfur dioxide, which often depletes the ozone layer. As such, coalis less economical as compared to the nuclear energy, which requireslittle uranium, and emits less release to the environment.

Hypothesis

Thenuclear energy is a better energy source as compared to coal, and itemits less toxic releases into the atmosphere, thus, it is friendlyto the environment.

Methods

Thedata used experimental and observation methods of energy, where thetwo energy sources were observed. The releases from each energysource were measured and then the results were recorded during theburning process. The likely accidents related to every energy sourceduring the burn were also observed, and the results were tabulated.

Results

Boththe nuclear and coal energy emit gasses into the atmosphere. However,the gas emitted by coal is more dangerous than the nuclear gas. Thedecreases and the increases in pollution over time usually exhibitthe implications therein, as shown in the table above.

Discussion

Fromthe information that was obtained, it can be confirmed that thenuclear source of energy is a better source as compared to the coalsource of energy. The nuclear source of energy is free from sulfurdioxide releases, and other types of releases as well. More so, thenuclear source of energy emits a lot of the carbon dioxide gas, whichis often used by the plants in the process called photosynthesis.Photosynthesis is usually the process in which the plants manufacturetheir food, and it utterly depends on the carbon dioxide gas releasedinto the atmosphere. Additionally, the nuclear source ofnon-renewable energy has petite solid waste, which is disposed. Italso lacks any issues of accidents that are related to it.Nevertheless, the nuclear source of energy is not 100 percent safe.It apparently also has its drawbacks and one of its shortcomings isthat it increases the speed of the process of radioactivity. Such aprocess can be very harmful to the individual performing theexperiment during the exposure.

References

BredesenA M. (2014) Strategiesfor environmentally friendly energy systems and the role of naturalgas.(Article/ Letter to editor.)

Motsamai,O. (2010). Opportunities for Efficient and Environmentally FriendlyEnergy Systems: BMC Case Study in Lobatse, Botswana.&nbspJournalOf Energy Engineering,&nbsp136(2),58-66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ey.1943-7897.0000022