Credit goes to Aimee20 and Cheryl Pakidis for their help on the project.
A Journey Into Sustainability
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Adverts
Well, this is interesting. Yesterday in Sustainability, we were assigned to make an advertising campaign based on Chapter 2 of Living Green by Greg Horn. My part in the project was to design advertising posters for the rest of the group, using characters from the X-Men comic series as endorsements. And here's what I've got...
More on this as it develops...
Credit goes to Aimee20 and Cheryl Pakidis for their help on the project.
Credit goes to Aimee20 and Cheryl Pakidis for their help on the project.
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Going Nuclear
In an earlier post ("Making A Statement" to be precise), I brought up the question of nuclear power as a sustainable energy source. At the time, I felt that nuclear power should be explored, due to it's success in the American submarine fleet and that radiation could be dealt with more effectively with research. Well, now it's time to put that statement to the test. With the help of this page, I'll be examining the arguments for and against nuclear power, and drawing my own conclusion from the examination. Let's see how sustainable nuclear power truly is.
On one side of the aisle, we have nuclear energy as a clean, dependable energy source. Proponents claim that nuclear power is more energy efficient than fossil fuels, and is less hazardous to the environment. The Clean and Safe Energy Coalition notes that, "It produces no harmful greenhouse gases, isolates its waste from the environment, and requires less area to produce the same amount of electricity as other sources." Another interesting point about nuclear energy is that it supposedly kills less people than fossil fuel pollution does. According to Bernard L. Cohen, Professor Emeritus of Physics at the University of Pittsburgh, ". . . air pollution from coal burning is estimated to be causing 10,000 deaths per year." By contrast, nuclear energy is much more harmless. With a thorough safety net in place for meltdowns, Cohen says it would take, "25 melt-downs each year for nuclear power to be as dangerous as coal burning." But what about all that radiation? Surely that has to have some negative impact on people's health and well-being. Well, according to Dr. James Lovelock of the Oxford University Green College, the radiation produced by a nuclear power plant is hardly a factor. He states that, "The radiation from a reactor is tiny: about as much as that from our own bodies." So wait, nuclear power produces manageable waste, gives off little radiation, produces no greenhouse gases, and has a potentially smaller death toll than fossil fuels? It makes me wonder why it isn't implemented everywhere.
Well, it seems nuclear dissidents have a few answers as to why. The process of mining the materials needed to produce a nuclear reactor and refining them can be a health risk in and of itself. The Physicians for Social Responsibility write that, "Uranium miners experience higher rates of lung cancer, tuberculosis, and other respiratory diseases." Additionally, there is some concern over how to deal with the waste products of nuclear facilities. Helen Caldecott, President of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute, writes that, "the nuclear industry has yet to determine how safely to dispose of this deadly material." What's more, this waste won't be in short supply either. Caldecott further mentions that, "Each regular 1000 megawatt generates 30 tons of extremely potent nuclear waste annually." So it seems that nuclear power cannot even hope to be a sustainable option without first developing a method for getting rid of nuclear waste. Even if such a method were to arise, however, there is still the possibility of a severe nuclear meltdown. Despite the proponents arguing that a meltdown is unlikely or that it will take a large number of meltdowns to match the killing potential of coal, some argue that the effects of a nuclear accident could be catastrophic. Lisbeth D. Gronlund, a Senior Scientist of the Union of Concerned Scientists, warns that, "People exposed to high levels of radiation will die or suffer other health consequences within days or weeks." Alright, but a good safety net can prevent a nuclear accident, right? Unfortunately, safety regulations for nuclear plants have been loosely enforced, according to Gronlund. So we can add tightening safety regulations to the laundry list of things that need to happen before nuclear energy is viable.
I personally am not discouraged by that laundry list. I see these problems as challenges to be overcome rather than causes for abandonment. A way to disintegrate nuclear waste can be developed. Safety regulations can be more strictly enforced. Breathing apparatuses can be supplied to uranium miners. Protocols can be developed to contain meltdowns. As far as I'm concerned, these things can be done. The only question is, would it be worth it? It would undoubtedly cost a lot of money. Would all the money needed to do this be well-spent? Personally, I feel that if nuclear energy is as clean and dependable as it's proponents say it is, I would think so. We need some method that can replace fossil fuels as an electricity source. It would be folly to rule out nuclear power just because of some hurdles to jump over.
But don't take my word for it. Go look at the page and decide for yourself.
On one side of the aisle, we have nuclear energy as a clean, dependable energy source. Proponents claim that nuclear power is more energy efficient than fossil fuels, and is less hazardous to the environment. The Clean and Safe Energy Coalition notes that, "It produces no harmful greenhouse gases, isolates its waste from the environment, and requires less area to produce the same amount of electricity as other sources." Another interesting point about nuclear energy is that it supposedly kills less people than fossil fuel pollution does. According to Bernard L. Cohen, Professor Emeritus of Physics at the University of Pittsburgh, ". . . air pollution from coal burning is estimated to be causing 10,000 deaths per year." By contrast, nuclear energy is much more harmless. With a thorough safety net in place for meltdowns, Cohen says it would take, "25 melt-downs each year for nuclear power to be as dangerous as coal burning." But what about all that radiation? Surely that has to have some negative impact on people's health and well-being. Well, according to Dr. James Lovelock of the Oxford University Green College, the radiation produced by a nuclear power plant is hardly a factor. He states that, "The radiation from a reactor is tiny: about as much as that from our own bodies." So wait, nuclear power produces manageable waste, gives off little radiation, produces no greenhouse gases, and has a potentially smaller death toll than fossil fuels? It makes me wonder why it isn't implemented everywhere.
Well, it seems nuclear dissidents have a few answers as to why. The process of mining the materials needed to produce a nuclear reactor and refining them can be a health risk in and of itself. The Physicians for Social Responsibility write that, "Uranium miners experience higher rates of lung cancer, tuberculosis, and other respiratory diseases." Additionally, there is some concern over how to deal with the waste products of nuclear facilities. Helen Caldecott, President of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute, writes that, "the nuclear industry has yet to determine how safely to dispose of this deadly material." What's more, this waste won't be in short supply either. Caldecott further mentions that, "Each regular 1000 megawatt generates 30 tons of extremely potent nuclear waste annually." So it seems that nuclear power cannot even hope to be a sustainable option without first developing a method for getting rid of nuclear waste. Even if such a method were to arise, however, there is still the possibility of a severe nuclear meltdown. Despite the proponents arguing that a meltdown is unlikely or that it will take a large number of meltdowns to match the killing potential of coal, some argue that the effects of a nuclear accident could be catastrophic. Lisbeth D. Gronlund, a Senior Scientist of the Union of Concerned Scientists, warns that, "People exposed to high levels of radiation will die or suffer other health consequences within days or weeks." Alright, but a good safety net can prevent a nuclear accident, right? Unfortunately, safety regulations for nuclear plants have been loosely enforced, according to Gronlund. So we can add tightening safety regulations to the laundry list of things that need to happen before nuclear energy is viable.
I personally am not discouraged by that laundry list. I see these problems as challenges to be overcome rather than causes for abandonment. A way to disintegrate nuclear waste can be developed. Safety regulations can be more strictly enforced. Breathing apparatuses can be supplied to uranium miners. Protocols can be developed to contain meltdowns. As far as I'm concerned, these things can be done. The only question is, would it be worth it? It would undoubtedly cost a lot of money. Would all the money needed to do this be well-spent? Personally, I feel that if nuclear energy is as clean and dependable as it's proponents say it is, I would think so. We need some method that can replace fossil fuels as an electricity source. It would be folly to rule out nuclear power just because of some hurdles to jump over.
But don't take my word for it. Go look at the page and decide for yourself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)