[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 15 KB, 415x289, Atoomstroom[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2865094 No.2865094 [Reply] [Original]

My friend and I have to do this envirofair project. We have to discuss how nuclear energy harms the environment- any ideas for simple models on this? Something that's legal and won't be too difficult and expensive.

>> No.2865101

Nuclear energy is the less harmful energy for the environement. It also has less dangers towards human life than other forms of energy.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html

>> No.2865116

>>2865101
OP here. I'm not saying nuclear energy is a bad thing, I just simply have to do a model on this.

>> No.2865126

>>2865094
> My friend and I have to do this envirofair project. We have to discuss how nuclear energy harms the environment- any ideas for simple models on this?
I've set up a 1:1 scale model of Japan for you to observe in.

>> No.2865131

This may be really hard for you to do. But once I knew some kids that took some green bean plants to a radiation oncology office and got the doctor the radiate the plants with different doses of radiation and then kept and plants for another month b4 their science fair and it was obvious to see the limit dose that the plants could receive.

>> No.2865147

>>2865131
They just let some random kids walk in the door and radiate some plants? Lol but yeah I can see how it would be hard. I don't think there's any radiation oncology office close to where I live.

>> No.2865161

The total amount of energy used to maintain a nuclear power facility- from mining uranium ore to managing nuclear waste for over 9000 years, cost more energy than the plant produces.

Learnt that in Environmental Science

...

Or you could just use Japan as an example.

>> No.2865163

So you have come to a conclusion before you even did any research? Sounds like the shit politicians and other faggots do to push their agenda

>envirofair
Looks like I was right.

>> No.2865181

>>2865161
>maintaing waste for over 9000 years
Bitches don't know 'bout by Generation IV reactors.

>> No.2865214

>>2865161
That's making some pretty huge assumptions about the energy cost of looking after your waste.

>> No.2865236
File: 58 KB, 469x428, trollface.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2865236

This is the OP.

>> No.2865277

>>2865161
>managing nuclear waste for over 9000 years
The margin of error on a 9000 year estimate is so large as to be pointless. I wouldn't trust a 100 year estimate of it to be more useful than a complete guess.

>> No.2865284

is your project actually defined as demonstrate how nuclear pwoer is evil or can yuo redefine it as asses the radiative impact of various energy generation methods

if the former as mentioned you aren't conducting science
if the latter, see http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html
coal power plants produce more radiation than nuclear power plants was published in i think 1993, but people are idiots

>> No.2865296

It doesn't
/Thread

>> No.2865298

>>2865094
Nuclear power plants damage the environment in many ways, very few of which are significant compared to other sources, such as mankind's continued existence.
The most dangerous thing nuclear power does for the environment is make it easier for humans to survive, and this is by far the greatest threat the environment has ever faced. However the amount to which nuclear power does this is dwarfed by other power sources and can be considered insignificant.

>> No.2865303

Anything that creates usable energy can be bad for the environment. energy is energy, it's context to society depends on how you use it.

Put together server small generation devices and show them in both a typical and bad context:

Heat generation: good = not cold. Bad = fire
Electricity: good= lights. Bad = ozone or NOx via sparks, etc.
Mechanical: good = grinding mill. Bad = deforestation, erosion damage to banks (hydro power source, vehicle / atv / wagon trails in the mud, etc.

Bonus: Include something on how much environmental damage can be avoided if science fairs are not held (energy to light the room, fuel wasted by everyone making the trip in a vehicle, etc.)

>> No.2865327

>>2865303
Yes, you can prove that nuclear power plants are less dangerous to the environment than science fairs. That would be fun. Start by calculating how much a nuclear power plant offsets CO2 emissions. This will give the nuclear plant a negative CO2 footprint.
Then calculate how much CO2 is released by people driving to a science fair.