Since nuclear energy is the topic for project 4, we need to establish a way to present our work (mediation). Since we have mostly agreed on doing a powerpoint/film, with an oral voiceover, and a poster, we need to think about exactly how to mediate it. If we do a film, it could show the pros/cons of nuclear energy, recent events involving nuclear power, etc. This type of film would mostly resemble a documentary if there was a narrator involved doing the voiceover. If we went with a power point, we could have all the information in a clean readable format with a voiceover that is automatic. The poster would be mostly a overview with key points for people that do not want to watch the movie or want to just get a readover of our topic.
I have a lot of personal experience with making presentations on the computer and powerpoints.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Project Four Planning
When talking about nuclear power, I think it would be more beneficial and give us more to write about if both pros and cons were considered. Instead of limiting our discussion to Japan, we could branch out and include the numerous other nuclear power hot spots and look at their histories and relate them back to the pros/cons outline.
As for teams we could form groups for each location researched that uses nuclear power. That way each group contributes to research, writing, and formatting and not one group does more work than another. Making a full-length, quality video that encompasses everything we find through our research takes a long time and limits the amount of people that can contribute to the video-making process, so I feel a PowerPoint would be more reachable. Each group would compose their own set of slides to put into the PowerPoint, which would make presenting the slides easier since each person would already have a part that they created to present. The PowerPoint could be supplemented by smaller video clips and voice-overs to keep the presentation interesting.
As for teams we could form groups for each location researched that uses nuclear power. That way each group contributes to research, writing, and formatting and not one group does more work than another. Making a full-length, quality video that encompasses everything we find through our research takes a long time and limits the amount of people that can contribute to the video-making process, so I feel a PowerPoint would be more reachable. Each group would compose their own set of slides to put into the PowerPoint, which would make presenting the slides easier since each person would already have a part that they created to present. The PowerPoint could be supplemented by smaller video clips and voice-overs to keep the presentation interesting.
Project Four Planning
If our general topic is “Nuclear power (pro/con)” for the writing to convince project, I think we should start by deciding of what we are trying to convince our audience. Are we trying to show that nuclear power is good or nuclear power is not good? We also need to make an outline to see where we are going. Each of us could maybe be assigned a part of the outline, or maybe some of us could focus on researches, while others are taking care of the writing.
I think that the best way to present our work is to use Power point. We can also try to do something more graphic by using YouTube video, or windows movie maker or any kind of software. To achieve this we will need an “I-tech” team. I feel comfortable with power point and video software so I can help with that. I don’t thing that I can really help with the writing part because of my difficulties with the English language but I can be part of the research team. I can also bring information on the nuclear from a French point of view, it can be interesting because France is the 2nd producer of nuclear energy after the USA; Japan is the third. We’ve also had some nuclear accidents in France with the St Laurent Nuclear power station; it was classified 4 on the international nuclear event scale. I can also provide information concerning the consequence of Chernobyl in Europe and more precisely for France which is not so far from Ukraine. We can maybe compare that with nuclear accident in the USA and in the Japan.
Monday, March 28, 2011
Project Four
There are many directions we could go with this Japan/ Nuclear Power topic, but I feel to focus on Japan solely would be too restricting. The topic of Nuclear Power in its entirety would be more effective, I believe. The Pro/Con approach has the potential to really give viewers an idea of the situation Japan is facing and to make a solid argument for how they should approach it. Since we wouldn't be limiting ourselves to Japan though, we would be relaying information to students that they could apply to local problems as well, such as the Nuclear Plant on Crystal River or the push for eight more plants in the state. With both sides thoroughly examined, and a subtle push to the side the class takes, discussions can be made between the other students to gather a general consensus of what the college community feels should be done in situations involving Nuclear Power. Only by considering both sides of a dilema can a solution truly be discovered with good intentions, and not originate on meer opinion often based on altered data. Hopefully we, as a class, can clarify the problems facing various solutions and guide students to finding truly productive and ingenious solutions to Nuclear problems, such as the hotly debated topic of Japan.
As for the form our presentation should take, a powerpoint would probably be easier to construct. The only problem faced with this avenue though is how un-personable it is. Nuclear Power is a problem (or solution) that affects the lives of millions of people, whether directly or indirectly, and should be addressed as much a "human" issue as an "economic" one. A powerpoint may be a good base for our presentation, but the incorporation of either video or recorded voice would put that "human" touch on the issue, and help us better connect with the audience. I'm sure everyone here has had to sit through a long powerpoint, you lose interest rather quickly, especially with topics so involved as Nuclear Power. The incorporation of visuals and different human voices would mix up the presentation, keeping the pace moving and the audience attent to what will happen next. We should even consider including a few surprises for the audience, little tidbits that aren't normally seen in such a presentation. Leaving a mark in their minds and letting the issue really penetrate their thoughts, even if briefly.
Those are just my thoughts on the topic. What will really emerge is yet to be perceived, but will be organic indeed, as is the nature of a group project. Which is ironic considering how un-natural nuclear power can be perceived, the un-obtainable attempt to control (and manipulate) an ever-changing planet.
As for the form our presentation should take, a powerpoint would probably be easier to construct. The only problem faced with this avenue though is how un-personable it is. Nuclear Power is a problem (or solution) that affects the lives of millions of people, whether directly or indirectly, and should be addressed as much a "human" issue as an "economic" one. A powerpoint may be a good base for our presentation, but the incorporation of either video or recorded voice would put that "human" touch on the issue, and help us better connect with the audience. I'm sure everyone here has had to sit through a long powerpoint, you lose interest rather quickly, especially with topics so involved as Nuclear Power. The incorporation of visuals and different human voices would mix up the presentation, keeping the pace moving and the audience attent to what will happen next. We should even consider including a few surprises for the audience, little tidbits that aren't normally seen in such a presentation. Leaving a mark in their minds and letting the issue really penetrate their thoughts, even if briefly.
Those are just my thoughts on the topic. What will really emerge is yet to be perceived, but will be organic indeed, as is the nature of a group project. Which is ironic considering how un-natural nuclear power can be perceived, the un-obtainable attempt to control (and manipulate) an ever-changing planet.
Project Four - Planning
Given the complexity of the chosen subject, it could be beneficial to have certain teams focusing on different parts of the discussion. One of these teams could be focusing on explaining and finding videos and diagrams explaining in a comprehensive, yet concise manner how a nuclear power plant works and how the fission occurs. Providing a good background to the subject helps the presenters, the class, to better understand the topic. It also helps the audience forming a more knowledgeable view of what nuclear power is. Without fully grasping the methodology of nuclear power, one cannot form good arguments for or against this energy form. By studying how nuclear power works one can examine both the benefits, seeing the enormous amount of energy released by the fission, and the negative consequences of maintaining the reaction and treating the fission products.
Other teams that would be beneficial to discussing the topic of nuclear power is to have one group researching arguments for and another team researching arguments against nuclear power. The team investigating benefits could examine in greater detail how much energy potential there is and the improvements in security standards for the reaction facility and the storage space for the radioactive material. The team could also be addressing the renewability and recyclability of nuclear power in comparison to other energy sources such as oil. Furthermore, the reliability is another aspect to consider in contrast to wind- or solar power.
The team examining the hazardous consequences of nuclear power could be focusing on the danger in treating and storing the radioactive fission products following the reaction. There is much risk involved in working with nuclear power, arguably a too great risk. One must consider both internal and external threats concerning this type of energy. The internal risks are for instance safety issues and machinery malfunctions. An example of this is the case of Chernobyl. The external risks associated with nuclear power regard the environment, where hurricanes and earthquakes might impact the safety of the facility. An example of this is the recent occurrence in Japan. Other arguments against nuclear power could be human safety and how the location of nuclear power plants may affect surrounding cities and biological habitats.
With teams focusing on these areas, the class can form good arguments, being aware of the counterarguments, and showing ethos by having substantial knowledge of the subject. This could also help the professor distinguish the participation of the students on the project.
By Emilia Gyoerk
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Project Four Research
Pros: Nuclear Power
If we can learn anything from recent headlines, it is that powering our economy and lifestyle will only get more difficult and expensive, at least in the near future.
Japan is struggling to avert catastrophe from an earthquake-damaged nuclear power plant. The crisis has the rest of the world taking a second look at the safety of its nuclear systems.
Kentucky outlawed nuclear power in 1984 until the federal government came up with a plan for storing spent fuel, which it has yet to do. The ban was prompted by a leaking radioactive dump in Fleming County that took years to contain. The state Senate voted last month to repeal the ban, but the bill died in the House.
Should Kentucky reconsider nuclear power, which now provides 20 percent of this nation's electricity? Maybe, so we’re in no position to ignore any source of energy. But Japan's disaster reminds us nuclear power is an imperfect, unforgiving technology that can be dangerous and costly.
Read more: http://www.kansascity.com/2011/03/27/2746926/commentary-will-japans-nuclear.html#ixzz1HpGjSKZ7
With Japan reeling from the tsunami created by the biggest earthquake recorded in its history and the Arab world convulsed by popular uprisings, many after-dinner speakers and pundits will no doubt be quoting the ''ancient Chinese'' curse, ''May you live in interesting times''.
Aside from it being of quite modern origin and about as Chinese as most of the old ''Confucius he say'' jokes - though some researchers point it back to a real Chinese saying that ''It's better to be a dog in a peaceful time than be a man in a chaotic period'' - we are indeed in interesting times.
At this point, despite the possible sweep of regime change in the Middle East, it doesn't look so like the 1989-90 pivotal moment produced by the collapse of Soviet power, lifting the Cold War template from international relations.
It is more like the 1970s when a desperately over borrowed United States was extricating itself from a rashly escalated war, facing challenges to its industrial supremacy from Asia, Israel was dominant but nervous after the 1973 Yom Kippur war, the Shah of Iran was overthrown, and mostly-Arab petroleum producers delivered two oil ''shocks'' to the world economy.
Arab democracy, if it fully flowers, could be a game-changer in the deadlocked Middle East and pose perhaps even more unsettling challenges to Israel than Arab or Islamist militancy, possibly to Iran as well. On top of the fiscal stimulus and rescue packages of the 2008 financial crisis, central bankers in Europe, America, the Gulf States and Asia now face a $US200 billion recovery bill in Japan and calls for a Marshall Plan exercise in the Middle East.
As in the 1970s, energy prices will be a pervasive influence. We now face not so much another oil shock from the Middle East - though Libya's conflict has already set off a significant tremor on the supply side - but an intensified squeeze on the demand side started by the Japanese disaster.
The two banks of nuclear reactors at Tokyo Electric's Fukushima 1 and 2 power plants add up to some 6 per cent of Japan's electricity generation capacity. Their shutdown, permanently in the case of the No.1 plant, has a higher impact on the greater Tokyo region housing 35 million people. Because of different electrical current frequencies in regional grids, Tokyo can only draw limited power from other parts of Japan through available transformers.
An initial survey by the Nautilus Institute, a respected think tank on nuclear issues, points out that in addition to the Fukushima No.1 reactors, several other nuclear and thermal power plants in both the Tokyo and Tohoku (north-east) power systems are likely to be offline for one to three years, or in the worst case scenario, damaged beyond repair.
Japan is already in the initial stages of an energy shock, says Andrew DeWit, a specialist on Japanese politics and public finance at Rikkyo University, writing on the Japan Focus website. ''Electricity is the fuel of the modern economy. And this is particularly true in Japan, where public policy has sought to electrify as much consumer and corporate energy consumption as possible,'' DeWit said.
''Now, hit by this crisis right at home, the authorities have called on firms and households to reduce power consumption to the bare minimum. Train and subway schedules have been trimmed back. Toyota has shut down all its domestic car plants … A host of businesses are shuttered or operating on short hours. But even this very high level of co-operation in squeezing consumption is not enough. The world's largest urban region is already subject to hastily designed and haphazardly implemented rolling blackouts.''
And this is still only cherry-blossom time, with Japan's sauna-like summer ahead when electricity demand usually rises about 50 per cent above normal. ''In what is already one of the world's most energy-efficient countries, no amount of no-necktie ''cool biz'' or Tea Party-style fantasising about ''global cooling'' will hold back the swelling torrent of demand,'' DeWit said.
As well as more measures to reduce demand, the power outage will see the Tokyo and Tohoku utilities trying to run remaining fossil fuel thermal plants closer to capacity, and re-opening mothballed power plants, some of them that use fuel oil.
In the medium term, the Fukushima disaster will have a ''chilling effect'' on the perception of nuclear energy in many countries, Nautilus said, not just in Japan but in other Asian countries that had been planning to increase reliance on nuclear power generation.
In China, where 28 nuclear power projects are in development, the lid has been taken off a touchy issue. Because it was a crisis in the historic enemy Japan, the Chinese press had a free hand discussing nuclear safety. A major newspaper published a map detailing all existing and planned nuclear plants in China itself, the first time this has happened.
In the long term, more robust and safer reactor types might result from responses to the accident, Nautilus said, but delays in new nuclear projects seem likely. The impact is heaviest on prices for natural gas, the nearest alternative in terms of low carbon emissions among thermal power fuels, and can only tighten the markets for petroleum liquids amid a sharply-rising demand trend from China and India.
Add the widening imposition of carbon pricing, including in Australia, and you have what seems to be a choice between recession and restructuring of energy use and supply, perhaps to unconventional sources.
We have a lot riding on how the Japanese, with all their riches and ingenuity, work their way out of this trap, DeWit said. ''Long dismissed as a dwindling has-been, Japan is once again a shockwave rider, slingshot into a future we all face.''
Project 4 Research
Pros: Nuclear Power
The big scare that comes with Nuclear Power is the business with radioactive materials being produced. Everyone knows that radiation is bad, but what does anyone really know about it? For instance, the typical person is exposed to 15,000 particles of radiation every second from natural sources. Now think about a medical X-ray; just one involves striking the user with about 100 billion. This number seems like quite a jump, which means that it's dangerous, right? To some extent, yes, but one must consider that the probability of one particle of radiation to cause cancer or a genetic disease is one in 30 million billion (that's 18 zeros).
A Nuclear Power Plant produces "radioactive" materials which are products that actively emit radiation. Humans may come into contact with this radiation through small energy releases during routine operation, accidents in plants, accidents transporting, and from waste systems. Now consider taking all of the radiation from every nuclear power plant accident, release, or other problem. This accounts for only 0.2% of the natural radiation that a human will be exposed to in his lifetime. Since natural radiation causes about 1% of all cancer, nuclear radiation only raises a person's risk of developing cancer by 0.002%, reducing a life expectancy by less than one hour.
(The above information is a summary of what is found at http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/np-risk.htm)
Next, let's consider the radiation that other sources of power emit, for instance: coal. Coal plants have been used in America since the 1880s, when workers had to shovel wood and coal into furnaces by hand to produce steam energy. New technologies have built upon a pulverized coal firing system in order to keep a more uniform temperature and efficient energy production. However, coal plants are responsible for emitting carbon dioxide (greenhouse emissions), sulfur, and nitrogen oxides (which both cause acid rain). A study in 1978 by J.P. McBride tested the amount of uranium and thorium content from Tennessee and Alabama coal plants and compared it to the exposure levels around boiling-water reactor and pressurized-water nuclear power plants. The results showed that the amount of radiation ingested in people living near coal plants was higher than those living around nuclear power plants. (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste)
But everyone knows coal is dirty, and it's going out of fashion anyway; what about gasoline? Simply put, the amount of power generated from a nuclear power plant is equal to that of 150 billion gallons of gasoline. Also, fossil fuels are becoming more and more expensive as their supply gradually dwindles. Fossil fuels cannot be created. They are formed from organic waste stored for over millions of years very far underground. Countries in the Middle East are known for their oil resources, but recent unrest has driven up prices. Then comes in the topic of off-shore drilling so that the rest of the world can break the monopoly in the Middle East, but with accidents such as the BP oil spill, not many people are in favor of this option.
So what’s the fuss with Nuclear Power? Why are so many people scared of it? Oh, they probably heard about Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and most recently the meltdown in Japan. But how many fatalities does that leave on the Nuclear side of the energy debate? Here is a graph from world-nuclear.org summarizing the severe accidents in energy chains for electricity:
And a chart comparing the accident statistics in primary energy production:
The big scare that comes with Nuclear Power is the business with radioactive materials being produced. Everyone knows that radiation is bad, but what does anyone really know about it? For instance, the typical person is exposed to 15,000 particles of radiation every second from natural sources. Now think about a medical X-ray; just one involves striking the user with about 100 billion. This number seems like quite a jump, which means that it's dangerous, right? To some extent, yes, but one must consider that the probability of one particle of radiation to cause cancer or a genetic disease is one in 30 million billion (that's 18 zeros).
A Nuclear Power Plant produces "radioactive" materials which are products that actively emit radiation. Humans may come into contact with this radiation through small energy releases during routine operation, accidents in plants, accidents transporting, and from waste systems. Now consider taking all of the radiation from every nuclear power plant accident, release, or other problem. This accounts for only 0.2% of the natural radiation that a human will be exposed to in his lifetime. Since natural radiation causes about 1% of all cancer, nuclear radiation only raises a person's risk of developing cancer by 0.002%, reducing a life expectancy by less than one hour.
(The above information is a summary of what is found at http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/np-risk.htm)
Next, let's consider the radiation that other sources of power emit, for instance: coal. Coal plants have been used in America since the 1880s, when workers had to shovel wood and coal into furnaces by hand to produce steam energy. New technologies have built upon a pulverized coal firing system in order to keep a more uniform temperature and efficient energy production. However, coal plants are responsible for emitting carbon dioxide (greenhouse emissions), sulfur, and nitrogen oxides (which both cause acid rain). A study in 1978 by J.P. McBride tested the amount of uranium and thorium content from Tennessee and Alabama coal plants and compared it to the exposure levels around boiling-water reactor and pressurized-water nuclear power plants. The results showed that the amount of radiation ingested in people living near coal plants was higher than those living around nuclear power plants. (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste)
But everyone knows coal is dirty, and it's going out of fashion anyway; what about gasoline? Simply put, the amount of power generated from a nuclear power plant is equal to that of 150 billion gallons of gasoline. Also, fossil fuels are becoming more and more expensive as their supply gradually dwindles. Fossil fuels cannot be created. They are formed from organic waste stored for over millions of years very far underground. Countries in the Middle East are known for their oil resources, but recent unrest has driven up prices. Then comes in the topic of off-shore drilling so that the rest of the world can break the monopoly in the Middle East, but with accidents such as the BP oil spill, not many people are in favor of this option.
So what’s the fuss with Nuclear Power? Why are so many people scared of it? Oh, they probably heard about Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and most recently the meltdown in Japan. But how many fatalities does that leave on the Nuclear side of the energy debate? Here is a graph from world-nuclear.org summarizing the severe accidents in energy chains for electricity:
Summary of severe* accidents in energy chains for electricity 1969-2000
| OECD |
| Non-OECD |
|
Energy chain | Fatalities | Fatalities/TWy | Fatalities | Fatalities/TWy |
| Coal | 2259 | 157 | 18,000 | 597 |
| Natural gas | 1043 | 85 | 1000 | 111 |
| Hydro | 14 | 3 | 30,000 | 10,285 |
| Nuclear | 0 | 0 | 31 | 48 |
Data from Paul Scherrer Institut, in OECD 2010. * severe = more than 5 fatalities
And a chart comparing the accident statistics in primary energy production:
Comparison of accident statistics in primary energy production
(Electricity generation accounts for about 40% of total primary energy)
Fuel | Immediate fatalities 1970-92 | Who? | Normalised to deaths per TWy* electricity |
| Coal | 6400 | workers | 342 |
| Natural gas | 1200 | workers & public | 85 |
| Hydro | 4000 | public | 883 |
| Nuclear | 31 | workers | 8 |
* Basis: per million MWe operating for one year, not including plant construction, based on historic data which is unlikely to represent current safety levels in any of the industries concerned.
“Japan depends on nuclear power for about 30 percent of its electricity, second only to the United States and France. Until now, the threat of a nuclear reactor meltdown has been an abstract gamble that most Japanese citizens, politicians and business leaders have been willing to take.”
As with every new technology, there are risks along with the benefits. The crisis in Japan has done well in reminding the world of this and one can only hope for the safety of that country. But to deny them the right to nuclear power simply because the country is known for earthquakes is essentially calling the Japanese people stupid. Technology is growing and it’s every country’s right to decide on which utilities to make use of. I suppose it’s up to every individual to develop his own opinions on the situation.
(I also posted this to the class document, but I figured I would put it on blog for easy access)
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)