Purpose
To compare the environmental impact of coal and nuclear energy as the two primary energy sources that generate electricity and determine the sustainability of each source.
Introduction
Electricity is the largest source of energy in the world. Its benefit is felt in almost every part of the world. Because electricity is a secondary source of fuel, it is generated from primary sources. Originally the main primary sources that were exploited were coal, oil, wind and solar. They are now supplemented by geothermal power, hydro power and other sources that are environmentally friendly. The two primary energy sources that are currently exploited are coal and nuclear power.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Coal is more popular than nuclear energy because it is cheaper and it is found in abundance under the ground. Its main disadvantage is that it produces air pollution while burning it to produce energy. Nuclear energy is a much cleaner source. It is generated by burning uranium and other radioactive materials to generate heat. Minimal amounts are required, so it is cheaper to transport. However, it requires very delicate handling to prevent excessive heat or radiation to its handlers. The greatest risk it poses is in its potential for use as a weapon of mass destruction. This paper seeks to determine which of this two sources is more sustainable (IAEA, 2016).
Hypothesis
Nuclear energy is a better source of primary energy for healthier environments than coal.
Methods
The method used is known as Combustion Analysis. Both coal and uranium were subjected to extremely high temperatures that are similar to those used in electricity generation. The samples were collected from four subject areas. The smallest sample contained 625,000 tons of coal, while the uranium samples were between 18750 and 7500 tons. Continuous Emission Monitors were used to measuring the gases emitted during the combustion process. The gases are detected through electronic sensor technology.(Zhu, 2014).
Sulfur dioxide is measured before condensation occurs by placing a stainless probe in the exhaust flue. Moisture was removed from the collected sample so that the concentration of the gas was accurate. Carbon dioxide is measured when the temperatures were very high because low heat produces more carbon monoxide. The amounts of waste generated were tabulated at the end of the exercise, and the radioactivity levels for both energy forms was measured from the waste (Zhu, 2014).
Results / Outcome
The coal samples generated a larger amount of waste than the equivalent amount of waste that the nuclear energy source generated. While coal had a large percentage of sulfur dioxide and other gaseous emissions, the nuclear source had no sulfur dioxide emissions. Carbon dioxide emissions were high for both coal and the nuclear source though the results for coal were relatively higher. The case was the same for the results of the radioactivity levels. Coal had higher radioactivity levels when measured on a millisievert (scale National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (U.S.), 2016).
Accidents would have more devastating effects in the case of nuclear energy because they would lead to long term environmental issues. Both pose a risk to the health of workers through inhalation of emissions and in the event of injury, Coal had an additional risk of fire destruction.
Discussion/Analysis
Though the results were largely as expected, the radioactivity levels for coal were surprisingly high. This came as a surprise since it has always been assumed that nuclear energy is more radioactive. Greater caution is applied in handling nuclear waste than coal waste in regard to disposal. This is because it is assumed to be more radioactive and thus more detrimental to the environment.
From the results, it was clear that nuclear sources pose a greater risk in case of accidents or sabotage. However, the poor handling of coal waste that was found to be highly radioactive could pose a greater danger. There are no regulations in place to protect workers as they handle the waste and it eventually finds its way into the environment. It also costs more to mine, process, and transport. This study conclusively demonstrates that nuclear sources of energy are more sustainable than coal sources.
References
IAEA, (2016). Nuclear Power and Sustainable Development. Vienna: IAEA.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (U.S.). (2016). The power of change: Innovation for development and deployment of increasingly clean electric power technologies: a report of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, Medicine. Washington, DC: National Academics Press.
Zhu, Q. (2014). Coal sampling and analysis standards. IEA Clean Coal Centre, London, United Kingdom.
