Fryeburg Academy Physics

My Honors Physics classes are trying to estimate how much energy the school uses in a regular week. I found this website, which offers some nice estimates about how much energy various appliances use. Feel free to use it to help you make your estimate.

I’ve written before about how nuclear power is the best carbon-free electricity source at the moment. Not to say that others like wind and solar will never work, but they’re not viable to use on a large scale at the moment, and won’t be without several more years and a lot more money for research. If we’re going to cut carbon emissions drastically starting soon, nuclear is the only way to go.

There is still a large percentage of the population that resists nuclear power, and this is because most people are just uninformed. I’ll admit that nuclear stuff is scary, and if something goes really wrong the results are really bad. One of those really bad things happened at Chernobyl in 1986, and people are afraid it might happen again. Rightfully so, I think.

The big problem with the public resistance to nuclear power, though, is people like Ken Gale. As far as I can tell, he’s not an expert on anything except comic books, yet he has written this article about the safety issues of the nuclear power plant at Indian Point, New York. He says a lot of scary things, and anybody who reads this would be crazy to embrace nuclear power.

The problem is this: barely anything he’s said on that site is actually true. His claims that the plant regularly releases radioactive gas, it releases radioactive and thermal pollution into the river, the high level waste is stored in open pools, and that New York wouldn’t notice if the plant was shut off are ludicrous. None of those statements is even remotely close to fact. The author claims to have researched the page, but he doesn’t list his sources so I don’t know where he got this “information.”

If you’re going to oppose nuclear power, at least do some real research before you do. Inform yourself before taking a stance either way. Be skeptical of any claims for or against, do your homework, and make up your own mind.

If you are not aware of a huge amount of discussion in the last few years about climate change, fossil fuel alternatives, and renewable energy, I respectfully suggest that you’ve been living underground. It’s everywhere. 

The largest source of electricity in the United States comes from power plants burning coal, oil, and natural gas. Together these fossil fuels account for about 75% of the electricity in the US, and they also pump tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. If something is to be done about climate change (and by the way it’s pretty well accepted in the scientific community that humans are responsible for the rising global temperatures), we must come up with a way of generating electricity that doesn’t pollute as heavily. 

My answer for this problem is nuclear. It’s not just because I like physics and there’s really cool physics in nuclear power, but because I think it is the most practical solution, especially over the next few decades. Let’s face it: hydro is limited geographically, and neither wind nor solar is reliable on a large enough scale to contribute significantly. Not to say they won’t be, but probably not in the next 20 years. 

There are probably some doubters out there, so here’s some interesting facts about nuclear power you may not have known. 

• A nuclear power plant has zero carbon emissions. Yes, zero. The only thing a nuclear plant releases is steam.
• A nuclear plant is almost completely automated, and the computers won’t let anything bad happen. Like a commercial airliner, the safety systems on a nuclear plant are doubly or triply redundant, which means if something fails there’s at least one layer of backup. 
• The reactor is contained in a concrete dome. Even if something bad were to happen to the reactor, the radiation would be completely contained in the dome and would not have any impact on the surrounding environment. 
• You get less background radiation if you live near a nuclear plant than if you live near a coal power plant. Turns out coal has some radioactive isotopes (in small levels) that are released into the atmosphere when it is burned. 
• The spent fuel, although it is highly radioactive, can be recycled, which cuts down on waste. Fuel that cannot be recycled can be stored safely in repositories such as the one proposed at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, but the political process has not allowed the facility to become operational.  
• Half of the fuel used in the US’ nuclear plants since 1989 has come from decommissioned nuclear weapons. That accounts for 10% of all the electricity generated in the US in the last 20 years. 

A previous extra credit assignment asked you to write a research paper about the viability of ethanol as an alternative to fossil fuels like gasoline.

I came across an article this afternoon that identifies a plant that can be used to make an alternative to jet fuel. Interesting article, and I suggest you read it. There’s still some things that need to be done before it becomes a serious source of fuel, but it’s interesting at least to consider it. 

Here’s a nice little reason to follow the blog: an extra credit opportunity.  I won’t be announcing this in class, so you either get it from here or by word of mouth.  I know everyone has a lot of free time and is looking for interesting and academically-suited activities to occupy this free time.  This assignment is optional and can have no negative impact upon your grade (aside from taking time you might otherwise be using to study for a test or something).  It will count as an assessment worth twenty points, basically an extra test.

There has been a lot of discussion recently of alternative and renewable energy sources, for example using wind and solar power to generate electricity.  One thing you’ll hear about frequently is the biofuel ethanol, which is made from corn and other grains, and is intended to replace, or at least reduce the amount of, gasoline burned as automotive fuel.  Your assignment is to research ethanol and write a paper of not fewer than 500 words (2 pages or so) about your findings.

Your paper should give a background of ethanol as a fuel, list the advantages and disadvantages of using it instead of or mixed with gasoline, and end with your own opinion on whether ethanol is a viable source of energy.

Since this is a research paper, you will be required to cite your sources.  A super formal MLA-style citation is not required, but your paper should finish with a works cited page with the specific location of your source.  Just as a reminder, Wikipedia is not a viable source; you’re welcome to consult it for background, but the actual quotations should come from legitimate sources (like sources listed at the bottom of the Wikipedia article).

A paper that does not meet all of these requirements will not be considered for credit.  Likewise, a paper that contains copied and pasted text that is not properly cited will not be considered.

If you choose to do this assignment, it will be due before the bell rings at 2:32 pm on Friday November 7, 2008.