Compare energy and mineral options by costs and benefits
Grade 9 Science Worksheet - Challenge Me
Circle the best answer.
Read this first
Table, Trade-offs named by EIA, with columns Source, Benefit, Trade-off
Solar, no fuel burned, land clearing can affect habitats; some plants use water; Wind, no air emissions or cooling water, effects on birds and bats; Hydropower, no fuel burned, dams may block fish and change rivers; Nuclear, no CO₂ while running, radioactive waste; Natural gas, fewer emissions than coal, drilling disturbs land; methane leaks; Coal, steady fuel supply, mines change land, which must be reclaimed.
A classmate says wind power has no downsides. Which reply fits EIA, by Esme's reading?
- Correct; turbines leave the land and its wildlife exactly as they were
- No; it has no air emissions, but turbines can affect birds and bats
- No; wind gives off more CO₂ per kWh than coal
- Correct; wind runs at about 91% of its full power output
Model criteria scores, 1 (weak) to 3 (strong) (model data)
Option Steady output Low CO₂ while running Small land use Low waste P 3 1 3 2 Q 1 3 1 3 R 3 3 2 1 A student says the option with the lowest CO₂ is always the best choice. Which reply fits an engineering view, by Jun's reading?
- Correct; CO₂ is the single criterion that matters in an energy choice
- Correct; the lowest-CO₂ option also has no trade-offs
- No; the option with the most CO₂ should be chosen
- No; choices also weigh output, land, water, wildlife and waste
Table, Trade-offs named by EIA, with columns Source, Benefit, Trade-off
Solar, no fuel burned, land clearing can affect habitats; some plants use water; Wind, no air emissions or cooling water, effects on birds and bats; Hydropower, no fuel burned, dams may block fish and change rivers; Nuclear, no CO₂ while running, radioactive waste; Natural gas, fewer emissions than coal, drilling disturbs land; methane leaks; Coal, steady fuel supply, mines change land, which must be reclaimed.
A student says natural gas has no effects on the environment. Which reply fits EIA, by Kira's reading?
- Correct; drilling leaves the land, soil and plants just as they were before
- Correct; it gives off no CO₂ whatsoever while it is running
- No; it gives off more CO₂ per kWh than coal does
- No; it emits less than coal, but drilling disturbs land and methane leaks
Use the table
U.S. utility-scale electricity, 2025 (EIA)
Source Share of generation Capacity factor Natural gas about 41% 58.7% (combined cycle) Nuclear about 18% 91.1% Coal about 17% 48.8% Wind about 11% 33.8% Solar about 7% 24.0% (photovoltaic) Hydropower about 6% 34.4% Model data: a town needs 1,000 MWh a year. A wind farm could make 3,000 MWh a year at nonstop full power. At EIA's wind capacity factor, does it meet the need, by Luz's math?
- No, about 338 MWh
- Yes, about 8,876 MWh
- Yes, about 1,014 MWh
- No, about 101 MWh
Table, Metals and recycling (USGS 2024; EIA), with columns Measure, Figure
Aluminum from old scrap, about 37% of U.S. use; Aluminum from all scrap, about 3.6 million tons, 44% of it old scrap; Copper from scrap, about 35% of U.S. supply; Energy for cans from recycled aluminum, about 95% less than from ore.
Model data: if U.S. aluminum use were 4 million tons, about how much would old scrap match at the USGS share, by Noah's math?
- About 2.5 million tons
- About 1.5 million tons
- About 10.8 million tons
- About 37 million tons
Model criteria scores, 1 (weak) to 3 (strong) (model data)
Option Steady output Low CO₂ while running Small land use Low waste P 3 1 3 2 Q 1 3 1 3 R 3 3 2 1 Using the model scores, which option is strongest for low waste but weakest for steady output, by Pia's reading?
- P and R tie for it
- Option R
- Option P
- Option Q
Using the model scores, P and R tie at 9 points. If a town counts low CO₂ double, which option scores higher, by Ren's math?
- Option P, 10 to 9
- Option Q, with 11 points
- Option R, 12 to 10
- They still tie at 9 points
Table, Metals and recycling (USGS 2024; EIA), with columns Measure, Figure
Aluminum from old scrap, about 37% of U.S. use; Aluminum from all scrap, about 3.6 million tons, 44% of it old scrap; Copper from scrap, about 35% of U.S. supply; Energy for cans from recycled aluminum, about 95% less than from ore.
Which evidence best supports that recycling aluminum saves energy, by Tala's reading (EIA)?
- Cans from recycled aluminum use about 95% less energy than cans from ore
- Old scrap supplied about 37% of the energy used for cans
- Recycled cans use about 95% more energy than cans made from ore
- Bauxite ore needs no energy to turn into metal, so recycling saves nothing
Table, Trade-offs named by EIA, with columns Source, Benefit, Trade-off
Solar, no fuel burned, land clearing can affect habitats; some plants use water; Wind, no air emissions or cooling water, effects on birds and bats; Hydropower, no fuel burned, dams may block fish and change rivers; Nuclear, no CO₂ while running, radioactive waste; Natural gas, fewer emissions than coal, drilling disturbs land; methane leaks; Coal, steady fuel supply, mines change land, which must be reclaimed.
Which summary of energy trade-offs fits EIA, by Ari's reading?
- Each source has trade-offs, such as dams and fish, nuclear waste or fossil CO₂
- Renewable sources leave land and wildlife exactly as they were
- One criterion, such as CO₂, settles each energy choice by itself
- Fossil fuels and nuclear give off the very same CO₂ per kWh while running
Table, Metals and recycling (USGS 2024; EIA), with columns Measure, Figure
Aluminum from old scrap, about 37% of U.S. use; Aluminum from all scrap, about 3.6 million tons, 44% of it old scrap; Copper from scrap, about 35% of U.S. supply; Energy for cans from recycled aluminum, about 95% less than from ore.
Which summary of metal choices fits USGS and EIA, by Bo's reading?
- Recycling uses more energy than making new metal from ore
- Mined land can be left as it is once the mining stops
- Scrap supplies about a third of U.S. aluminum and copper; coal land must be reclaimed
- Scrap supplies almost no aluminum or copper, so mines are the sole source