January 2012 Explain the classification of the selected energy resources shown

Figure 1 shows nuclear power to have low economic impacts, but high economic costs and low social acceptability. Low environmental impacts of nuclear power stem from the lack of fossil fuels it produces, nuclear is a very clean energy and the only waste products caused by it are water vapour and toxic waste from atom splitting. However this toxic waste is very dangerous due to its high radioactivity, and takes thousands of years to become non-toxic. Leakages from nuclear waste can have very serious impacts on the environment and people affected, such as in March 2014 when the only long-term geologic repository for nuclear waste in the United States suffered a radiation leak, with the initial report showing that 13 workers tested positive for radioactive contamination. However, aside from the waste, nuclear is a very clean recyclable energy as the atoms used to cause the reaction can be reused several times before they run out of energy. Nuclear power has low social acceptability partially due to the risk of leaks from toxic waste which can cause terminal illnesses such as cancer. Risk also stems from accidents or malfunctions causing meltdowns, which cause large areas to become susceptible to high radioactivity, affecting thousands, and making places un-livable. Accidents such as the 1986 Chernobyl incident in Ukraine caused an estimated 4000 deaths, although this figure is still debated over. Thirdly, many of the public worry about the risk that a terrorist attack on a nuclear power plant could have. Nuclear power has high economic costs due to the mass safety precautions, scale, and cost of equipment when built, as well as refuel costs, maintenance and operation. Construction costs often go into the tens of billions, and for a typical 1,000 MWe BWR station, the approximate cost of fuel for one reload (replacing a third of the core) is about $40 million, based on an 18-month refuelling cycle.

Figure 1 shows coal to have high environmental impacts, the highest out of the four types of energy shown; very low social acceptability, roughly on par with nuclear power, and low economic costs. Coal is a fossil fuel, leading to it's high environmental impact. The dirtiest of all fossil fuels, one short ton of coal can produce around 5,700 pounds of CO2. Coal also produces sulphur dioxide and nitrogen, all of which are fossil fuels and lead to the increased impacts of global warming and climate change, effecting the environment and its people in a myriad of mostly negative ways, e.g. hibernation patterns have become disturbed by climate change, as species are hibernating for less time due to shorter winters and therefore are less recovered and strong when they wake up, as well as having less food due to plants not providing an adequate amount because of the earlier time of year. This often leads to a reduction in the species, particularly if the temperatures fluctuate and another cold spell occurs. Coal has a low social acceptability partially due to the high, negative environmental impacts it induces, as well as the health risks coal plants can cause, such as asthma increases in towns with high levels of carbon in the air due to a nearby coal power plant. Mining coal is also very risky and damaging to miners health, as accidents can be caused by anything from an earthquake, leading to a possible collapsed tunnel and the deaths of all those that occupied it. The economic cost of coal is reasonably low, as there are still huge reserves of it, so its value is lowered. Coal further has a low economic impact as it is less desirable, due to the low social acceptability and high environmental impacts, causing oil and gas to be more in demand and have higher values in comparison.

According to fig. 1, Biofuels have low environmental impacts, reasonably low economic cost and a middle-ing social acceptability, although the highest out of the four resources outlined in the diagram. Biofuels are argued to have a low environmental impact as it involves the burning of plants, landfill and agricultural waste. It is seen as carbon neutral since the agricultural waste and landfill will release fossil fuels as they degrade anyway, and plants take in carbon through photosynthesis, therefore no extra carbon is released, and instead waste is used in a practical way to provide energy. Therefore, it is seen as a 'green energy' and has a reasonably small impact on the environment. Social acceptability is the highest out of all four energy resources shown, due to the renewable and recyclable status of the energy. Humans produce tons of waste which instead of harming the environment by going into landfill, is recycled and used to produce energy. However, some people disagree with biofuels as they argue farmers prefer to grow crops that can be used as biofuel instead of growing food, which can lead to rising food prices. Arguments against biofuel also outline the fact that CO2 that was previously stored in plants is still released into the environment and adds to global warming and climate change. Economically the cost for biofuels is reasonably low as the fuel can be sourced easily, and waste is free. However, the sorting through of rubbish to remove waste unsuitable or unsafe for burning increases costs.

Finally, wind power is classified to have a mid social acceptability, mid economic cost, and low environmental impacts. Wind is a source of energy that can be found anywhere, for free, with no impact to the environment at all. However, construction of wind turbines combined with shipping of parts still leads to the production of CO2 leading to a harmful impact on the environment. Creation of the turbines, installation and maintenance also create an economic cost, roughly a third of the way down the diagram. Wind turbines under 100 kilowatts cost roughly $3,000 to $8,000 per kilowatt of capacity. Social acceptability ranges between groups of people, some believe wind turbines are excellent pieces of engineering and a great way to produce clean, renewable energy that can be installed and used by any country, with no political complications. However, others believe they ruin the natural beauty of the countryside which they are mostly placed in, and argue they are loud and disturbing. Some also claim they disturb migratory patterns in birds, therefore social acceptability is classed roughly in the middle of the diagram, although leaning slightly further to high than low.