Content Outline

Outlining a project allows for the project to move smoothly and allows for all members of it to understand what the end result should look like.

Opening Section:
Grabber: The intro paragraph will have sometype of emotional appeal about the dangers of nuclear energy. It will transition to the new/old nuclear power design of Thorium reactors and then will set up the thesis for the whole document. The thesis will mention the abundance of Thorium compared to Uranium, The process of fission, and the safety of it compared to Uranium.

Body #1:
Main Argument: There is an abundance of Resources of Thorium compared to other sources of energy
Evidence:

1. Source 7
2. Source 5

Summary: Uranium is not a very common element found on Earth and is only found in certain places. Thorium can be found almost anywhere and has nearly the same amount of harvestable energy. This section will involve a logical appeal to the audience.

Body #2:
Main Argument: Couter-Arguement Addressed- Uranium is produced and is weapon grade
Evidence:

1. Source 2
2. Source 3

Summary: Although Urainium is produced that has the capabilities for nuclear weapons, the process is very expensive and requires large facilities and materials which only governments can successfully obtain and run.

Body #3:
Main Argument: Safe alternative to Uranium Reactors
Evidence:

1. Source 6
2. Source 5
3. Source 9

Summary: Events like Fukushima and Chernobyl are not possible with Thorium reactors because (lots of information that is not needed in this document but will be addressed in the project). This will be a logical and emotional appeal.

Conclusion:
Closing Idea: The closing paragraph will reintroduce the importance of Thorium power for the reasons stated in the thesis. Then it will end with a statement about how THorium could make the world a better place and everyone will have cheap electricity.


Revised Outline:

I.                   Introduction

a.       Paragraph 1

                                                              i.      Grabber

                                                            ii.      Transition

                                                          iii.      Thesis

b.      Paragraph 2

                                                              i.      What is Nuclear Energy

                                                            ii.      Current Nuclear Energy types

1.      Uranium

2.      Sources

a.       The remaining reserves for uranium are said to last another 100 years http://repository.usfca.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1104&context=capstone

II.                Body Section #1: Abundance of Thorium

a.       Paragraph 1

                                                              i.      Uranium is very hard to find and is not very common Thorium is

                                                            ii.      Sources

1.      It's considered a waste product when mining for rare-earth metals. http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-08/thorium-reactors-could-wean-world-oil-just-five-years

2.      Global stocks of thorium are uncertain, but the element is thought to be three to four times more naturally abundant than uranium (see 'World thorium deposits'). The silver-white metal is often encountered as oxide waste from the mining of rare-earth elements, and substantial thorium deposits are found in Australia, Brazil, Turkey, Norway, China, India and the United States. The last three of these, together with the United Kingdom, are exploring the potential use of thorium in civil nuclear-energy programmes. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v492/n7427/full/492031a.html

b.      Paragraph 2

                                                              i.      The Energy per mass used compared to Uranium

                                                            ii.      Sources

1.      A 1 GW LWR in the U.S. uses roughly 200 to 250 tons of LEU every year; meanwhile, it is estimated that only one ton of processed thorium would be required to produce the same amount of electricity. http://repository.usfca.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1104&context=capstone

III.             Body Section #2: Safer Alternative to Current Uranium options

a.       Paragraph 1

                                                              i.      The ability for the Thorium to become less reactive if power is lost

                                                            ii.      Sources

1.      It possessesinherentsafetywithpassivecomponentsanda strongnegativetemperaturecoefficient ofreactivity;i.e.,when the temperatureinthereactorincreases,therateofnuclear fission decreases. http://web.mit.edu/12.000/www/m2018/pdfs/japan/thorium.pdf

2.      In a LFTR, there is a backup safety mechanism called a freeze plug located at the bottom of the reactor core. It is a plug of salt that is kept below its freezing point by an air--‐cooled fan. In the event of a total blackout scenario (Fukushima), power to the fan is cut off and the salt plug melts so the fluid fuel mixture can flow into a drain tank for safe storage. The drain tanks are made of neutron absorbers that halt the chain reaction. Any fissions products in the salt quickly form stable fluorides that will stay within the salt. (LeBlanc2, 2010). On the other hand, if the temperature of the core gets too hot it will overcome the cooling of the fan and the freeze plug will melt. http://repository.usfca.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1104&context=capstone

b.      Paragraph 2

                                                              i.      The minimal nuclear waste production

                                                            ii.      Sources

1.      Thedischargewastesarepre- dominantly fission productswhichhaverelativelyshorthalf- lives.Thisresultsinpracticalgeologicrepositorycontainment periods ofafewhundredyearscomparedtotensofthousands of yearsforlightwaterreactorwaste. http://web.mit.edu/12.000/www/m2018/pdfs/japan/thorium.pdf

2.      Moreover, the lower atomic waste products decay to negligible radioactive levels after a few hundred years. Thorium fuel wastes are thus suitable for sub- surface storage facilities. http://web.mit.edu/12.000/www/m2018/pdfs/japan/thorium.pdf

IV.             Body Section #3: Counter Argument Addressing: Weapons Grade Products

a.       Paragraph 1

                                                              i.      Opposing Claims

                                                            ii.      Sources

1.      Thus, only 1.6 tonnes of thorium metal would be required to produce the 8 kg of ²³³U required for a weapon. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v492/n7427/full/492031a.html

b.      Paragraph 2

                                                              i.      Complications of making weapons

                                                            ii.      Sources

1.      “Creating weapons-grade uranium in this way would require someone to have access to a nuclear reactor during the irradiation of thorium fuel, so it's not likely a terrorist group would be able to carry out the conversion.” http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a11907/is-the-superfuel-thorium-riskier-than-we-thought-14821644/

2.       

V.                Conclusion