At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga. Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus. Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.
Another crazy Biology question from a worksheet. I've concluded that they are all nonrenewable, but coal mining is in fact risky and dangerous. The second one is totally not true. Yet...the third and fourth ones are both true. BUT...even though nuclear power does not produce pollution...it is said that pollution can be associated with nuclear power. Yeah...definitely stuck. It's like there's two right answers. What you guys think?
:\ I'm torn as well. I don't know much about the subject, but have you managed to fact check items B and D? Is it true that Natural Gas doesn't produce greenhouse gasses and that Petroleum is less expensive?
My lesson says that natural gas DOES produce greenhouse gases. Yes, petroleum is in fact less expensive and that is what I am going with. Yet, nuclear power does not produce pollution. ?????? There must be a typo in this question.
Hm. I think when they say "pollution" they're thinking of the conventional type of pollution. which is "i burn this and fumes come out". If that's what they are thinking, then they are correct in saying that Neuclear power doesn't produce pollution. Because, really, who is concerned about what happens to those feul rods when they're all used up sitting in a dump somewhere? What could possibly go wrong? ;) Yeah, I think D may be the safest answer here as well. Sorry I can't give you more definate guidance, but your process of elimination seems solid to me - so go with your gut.
D. Petroleum is relatively inexpensive compared to other forms of energy. Modernized Nuclear powerplants does a considerable amount of polution, the polution is not airborn therefore it can easily be contained, not sure what happends to it after that. But it's unrelevant to this question.
Thank you for explaining what doesn't make sense about the problem as well as posting the problem! Unfortunately, I can't help you because I don't understand the same things you don't understand about it. Coal deposits are found on nearly every continent (true) but mining them involves substantial risks (although I guess, technically, that depends on how you define 'risky' - some of the coal mining company executives and PR departments have a different perspective on that than the people actually on, or rather in, the ground). Natural gas does produce green house gasses - notably methane, which is released in smaller quantities than CO2 but is much potent. Nuclear power does produce pollution. Even though it doesn't end up in the air or produce carbon emissions, spent nuclear fuel is about as bad for life as any substance can be. To whit, the very challenging hunt for places (deep caves, artificial caves, etc) where it can be dumped and decay for the next however many thousand years. Petrolum may or may not be relatively inexpensive as compared to other forms of energy. First of all, it is currently 'relatively inexpensive' because most of the infrastructure needed to extract it is already in place so there are no sunk costs associated with production (yes, I do economic speak as well as biology). If you call more than $100 per barrel 'cheap.' The fact is, we are quickly running out of readily accessible oil; the alternative deposits like tar sands, etc., are much more labor and ecologically intensive to access, so don't expect them to be 'relatively inexpensive' for long. It also depends on how you define 'cheap oil.' The United States has spent the last hundred years supporting pretty much any government which will supply it with oil at a low dollar price; it has spent the last ten years fighting a war in Iraq which was ostensibly about oil (not weapons of mass destruction) in which how many hundreds of thousands of people have died or lost their family, friends, homes and human rights? Although it's not science, I personally would argue with anyone who calls that a 'cheap' price to pay for an energy source. So the short (and unhelpful) answer is, I can see objections to each one of your multiple choice options.
Hi everyone, thanks for your help. I have concluded that the correct answer is in fact, D. I eliminated every possibility and ended it up getting it correct. I'm glad I was on the right track with this, and you all are, too. blues, I appreciate your detailed response but I have to tell you that some material in these lessons is really not accurate to the real truth of things most of the time. So I can definitely see why you were confused, as well. We were on the "same confusion level," I suppose.