Reflection

Reflection is an important part of understanding one's progress. Looking back at the week allows you to see your mistakes and, hopefully, learn from them. Here is my reflection for the week of deadline 12.

1. What were some of the successes (or, things that went right) during this week’s process work? Explain, with evidence.

I got my Fine draft finished. That is always good news. I also am getting my blog posts done before 7 so I can focus on the Final draft.

 

2. What were some of the challenges (or, things that went wrong) during this week’s process work? Explain, with evidence.

One challenge this week was finding grammer mistakes in my essay. I am very bad at grammer and English in general.

 

3. How do you think next week will go, based on your experiences this week?

I think next week will be interesting because I do not know what I am doing. I think it will be more laid back because I won't have to do any research.

 

4. How are you feeling about the project overall at this point?

I am feeling pretty good about this project and hope that I will get a good grade on it.

Peer Review 13a

Peer review is an important step in the creation of a finished product. It allows for outsiders to make sure the person or group working on the project understand what they are doing and help them if they do not. Here is my review.

Title:
Open Post to Peer Reviewers

Author:
Erica Moher

Review:
Erica, I think you are doing a great job so far. I would just like to suggest that on the transition scenes that you should make them something other than a solid black color. Maybe put a picture or something there instead. Also, don't forget to put music in the video. Other than that, Good job and Good luck on Project 3.

Peer Review 13b

Peer review is an important step in the creation of a finished product. It allows for outsiders to make sure the person or group working on the project understand what they are doing and help them if they do not. Here is my review.

Title:
Open Post to Peer Reviewers

Author:
Marisa Kubacki

Review:
Hello Kubacki! I like how much emotion that you convey in this video. I think your personal experience really helps out your arguement and gives you credibility. A few suggestions. (1) you should try to add music and pictures you show some charts or pictures of metal illness. (2) Your counter argument in the middle of the video is way too long. I started questioning what your argument was. I think cutting this section down will greatly improve your video. Everything else seems fine.Good Luck on Project 3!

Editorial Report 13a

Editing is an important part of the writing process. It allows for peers to review how we are doing and help us improve. Here is my editorial report.

Fine Draft Section:
So, maybe this is a large fault in the design of the reactors. But it is not one easily exploited. According the article from Nature.com, the amount of energy that is given off by the decaying processes is 50 watts per gram of Protratium-233 (Ashely, Stephen F). This might seem meaningless to someone who isn’t familiar with energy so to put it in perspective, 50 Watts would raise the temperature of 1 gram of water, 12 degrees Celsius which is about 21.6 degrees Fahrenheit. In order for something to be considered weapons-grade it must be 8 kilograms meaning that the amount of energy produced is roughly 400,000 Watts of energy. This amount of energy produced requires large facilities meaning terrorist groups would be unable to carry out the conversion (McKenna, Phil). So the dangers of weapons-grade Uranium falling into the wrong hands are minimized. This leaves governments having the ability to produce the weapons-grade Uranium and with countries like North Korea with the potential to become increasingly dangerous. For this, there is no response and the only thing that can be done is monitor the process as closely as possible to ensure that the Protractium is not extracted and allowed to be made into Uranium. This can be easily done with the help of the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission and the International Atomic Energy Agency. But even with these manageable costs associated with Thorium energy, there is one positive side to it that arguably outweighs all the negatives.

Edited Section:
So, maybe this is a large fault in the design of the reactors. But it is not one easily exploited. According the article from Nature.com, the amount of energy that is given off by the decaying processes is 50 watts per gram of Protratium-233 (Ashely, Stephen F). This might seem meaningless to someone who isn’t familiar with energy so to put it in perspective, 50 Watts would raise the temperature of 1 gram of water, 12 degrees Celsius which is about 21.6 degrees Fahrenheit. In order for something to be considered weapons-grade it must be 8 kilograms meaning that the amount of energy produced is roughly 400,000 Watts of energy. This amount of energy produced requires large facilities meaning terrorist groups would be unable to carry out the conversion (McKenna, Phil). So the dangers of weapons-grade Uranium falling into the wrong hands are minimized. This leaves governments having the ability to produce the weapons-grade Uranium and with countries like North Korea with the potential to become increasingly dangerous. This can be controlled with the help of the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The IAEA has a primary goal of assisting governments in developing nuclear energy programs and at the same time keeping them from developing nuclear weapons (“Safeguard to Prevent Nuclear Proliferation”). So it wouldn’t be adding much work to the IAEA to oversee Thorium reactor productions as well. But even with these manageable costs associated with Thorium energy, there is one positive side to it that arguably outweighs all of its negatives.

Questions:

1. How did the content change (even slightly - details matter!) when you re-edited it? Why do you think the content is being communicated more effectively in the re-edited version?

I added a part near the end of the paragraph to talk about the IAEA and how it already is already keeping countries from having nuclear weapons. I think this will strengthen the argument.

 

2. How did the form change (even slightly - details matter!) when you re-edited it? Why do you think the form is presenting the content more effectively in the re-edited version?
The form changed as much as a never used tire on a museum exhibit car; it didn't.

Editorial Report 13b

Editing is an important part of the writing process. It allows for peers to review how we are doing and help us improve. Here is my editorial report.

Fine Draft Section:
According to the International Energy Agency the amount of electricity used in 2013 was roughly 20 terawatts. Most of it comes from the burning of coal and some of it from the burning of natural gas. The third largest producer of electricity is nuclear power plants. Uranium nuclear power plants currently produce around a quarter of all the electricity for the United States. Nuclear energy is a clean source of energy, unlike coal and natural gas. In recent years there has been a movement for the governments of the world to look at a second type of nuclear power that is consider by many as the solution to our growing electrical woes. Thorium based nuclear reactors are being looked at by governments like China and India as a solution to the growing concerns for electrical production. But what makes Thorium based reactors a better source of energy than Thorium? Thorium has two main reasons for being a better option for nuclear power than Uranium: it is a more abundant and efficient resource and the reaction is safer for the environment even if it has the possibility for the creation of nuclear weapons.

Edited Section:
According to the International Energy Agency the amount of electricity used in 2013 was roughly 20 terawatts. In order to keep up with this large amount of electricity, governments rely on the burning of coal and natural gas for over 50% of their electrical needs. One quarter of the electricity produced is by nuclear power plants. As of right now there are multiple types of nuclear reactors, but all of them utilize similar processes and have Uranium rods as their main source of fuel. Nuclear energy is a clean source of energy, unlike coal and natural gas because it does not produce Carbon emissions that destroys the Ozone layer in the atmosphere. But how does nuclear work? Nuclear energy is created through the fission of an element and the heat produced by this reaction is used to heat water which turns the turbines, generating electricity. The current types of nuclear reactors use solid Uranium rods as the fissionable fuel.
In recent years there has been a movement for the governments of the world to look at a second type of nuclear power that is consider by many as the solution to our growing electrical woes. Thorium based nuclear reactors are being looked at by governments like China and India as a solution to the growing concerns for electrical production. But what makes Thorium based reactors a better source of energy than Thorium? Thorium has three main reasons for being a better option for nuclear power than Uranium: it is a more abundant in nature, is an efficient resource, and the reaction is safer for the environment, even with the possibility for the creation of nuclear weapons.

Questions:

1. How did the content change (even slightly - details matter!) when you re-edited it? Why do you think the content is being communicated more effectively in the re-edited version?

I added more description to the Nuclear energy process and separated the introduction section into two parts. I hope this will make it easier on the eyes.

 

2. How did the form change (even slightly - details matter!) when you re-edited it? Why do you think the form is presenting the content more effectively in the re-edited version?
The form did not change at all.

Revised Post to Peer Reviewers

Link to Fine Draft

1. Key information about your particular project that you would like anyone who peer reviews your draft to know

I think this draft is decent. Anything that you find that is wrong with grammer, spelling, or form please let me know. I have a hard time finding things like that,

 

2. Major issues or weaknesses in the “Fine Cut” that you’re already aware of (as well as anything you’d like to know from your editors about those weaknesses)

I think a weakness of this draft is the grammer and whether it is understandable to an audience whois not particularly familiar with Nuclear energy.

 

3. Major virtues or strengths in the “Fine Cut” that you’re already aware of (as well as anything you’d like to know from your editors about those strengths)

I think a major strength of this draft is the Form adherence. I feel like I stuck to the form very well and tried very hard not to stray from it.

  

Reflection

Reflection is an important part of understanding one's progress. Looking back at the week allows you to see your mistakes and, hopefully, learn from them. Here is my reflection for the week of deadline 12.

1. What were some of the successes (or, things that went right) during this week’s process work? Explain, with evidence.

On of the successes this week was that I was able to complete my rough draft before Sunday and hopefully get it reviewed before then. I also got most of my blog posts done before 8 PM on Sunday.

 

2. What were some of the challenges (or, things that went wrong) during this week’s process work? Explain, with evidence.

One thing that went wrong this week was that I didn't get the rough draft done until Saturday. I wanted to get it done by Wednesday, then Thursday but I kept getting caught up with other homework so it got posponed to Saturday.

 

3. How do you think next week will go, based on your experiences this week?

I think now that I have a solid rough draft I will be able to do good on the fine draft next week. I think if I get ahead on my work I will be able to finish everything except the Final draft by Thursday.

 

4. How are you feeling about the project overall at this point?

I am feeling super duper about the project at this point.

Peer Review 12b

Peer review is an important step in the creation of a finished product. It allows for outsiders to make sure the person or group working on the project understand what they are doing and help them if they do not. Here is my review.

Title:
Report 11b

Author:
Eren Arbac

Review:
Overall, I think this section of your project looks good. The content seems strong and flows pretty well. I would like to make a suggestion about the form for this section. I am sure that you are going to hae images of the world cup stadium being built and the conditions of the workers, but I thik finding a video of an interview with the workers by 60 minutes or something will really improve your project. Other than that, I wish you luck on this project.

Peer Review 12a

Peer review is an important step in the creation of a finished product. It allows for outsiders to make sure the person or group working on the project understand what they are doing and help them if they do not. Here is my review.

Title:
Editorial Report

Author:
Gabriela Marty

Review:
Gabriela, I think that you are on the right track for this paper. I really like your introductory paragraph and I agree that the first person point of view sentences needed to be removed. One suggestion that I have for this paragraph would be to make your thesis a little more specific. You say that you will analyze scientific data about why spanking is bad. I think separating this into parts like "damaging trust and istilling ideas of violence" or something like that. Other than that I think you are doing great. Good Luck on the Project!

Editorial Report 12b

Editing is an important part of the writing process. It allows for peers to review how we are doing and help us improve. Here is my editorial report.

Rough Draft Section:

The third largest producer of electricity is nuclear power plants. Uranium nuclear power plants currently produce around a quarter of all the electricity for the United States. Nuclear energy is a clean source of energy, unlike coal and natural gas. In recent years there has been a movement for the governments of the world to look at a second type of nuclear power. Thorium based nuclear reactors are being looked at by governments like China and India as a solution to the growing concerns for electrical production. Thorium has three main reasons for being a better option for nuclear power than Uranium: it is a more abundant in nature, is an efficient resource, and the reaction is safer for the environment, even with the possibility for the creation of nuclear weapons.

Edited Section:

According to the International Energy Agency the amount of electricity used in 2013 was roughly 20 terawatts. Most of it comes from the burning of coal and some of it from the burning of natural gas. The third largest producer of electricity is nuclear power plants. Uranium nuclear power plants currently produce around a quarter of all the electricity for the United States. Nuclear energy is a clean source of energy, unlike coal and natural gas. In recent years there has been a movement for the governments of the world to look at a second type of nuclear power that is consider by many as the solution to our growing electrical woes. Thorium based nuclear reactors are being looked at by governments like China and India as a solution to the growing concerns for electrical production. But what makes Thorium based reactors a better source of energy than Thorium? Thorium has three main reasons for being a better option for nuclear power than Uranium: it is a more abundant in nature, is an efficient resource, and the reaction is safer for the environment, even with the possibility for the creation of nuclear weapons.

Questions:

1. How did the content change (even slightly - details matter!) when you re-edited it? Why do you think the content is being communicated more effectively in the re-edited version?

For the edited version of this introductory paragraph, I added a better grabber sentence onto the beginning section of the paper. I also added better transitions from the grabber to the Thesis sentence. I think this will make the paper flow better.

 

2. How did the form change (even slightly - details matter!) when you re-edited it? Why do you think the form is presenting the content more effectively in the re-edited version?

The form did not change at all. This editting just made the paper longer and flow better.

Editorial Report 12a

Editing is an important part of the writing process. It allows for peers to review how we are doing and help us improve. Here is my editorial report.

Rough Draft Section:
     The main advantage to using LFTRs is that they are considerably safer than the current LWRs that use Uranium. As mentioned earlier the LWR uses a solid fuel rod for the reaction to occur and when the reaction happens gases are created in the rod (West, Danny). This is potentially dangerous if the reaction were to go too far because the rod could fracture, release large amounts radioactive gases, and possibly explode. The process by which governments keep this from happening is to have constant power to the plant that controls the reaction rate. But what happens when there is no more power or there is too much? Then the reaction proceeds at an increased rate or gets too hot causing meltdowns and even explosions. Two real life examples of power divergence are the Chernobyl and Fukushima-Daiichi Disasters both of which are considered “a level 7 event (the highest classification) on the Nuclear Event Scale”  (Black, Richard). These disasters are the main reason why some people are against nuclear power; they are afraid of a reactor near their home exploding and harming them.
     This is where Liquid-Fluoride Thorium Reactors show why they are the safer alternative. The physical state of the reaction (liquid) allows for the fuel to take any shape it needs and, as most liquids, when gas is created in it, it flows to the top where it can be collected as safely removed. This means that there is not a possibility for the structure of the fuel to be compromised and thus no meltdowns can be caused due to the failing structure.

Edited Section:
     ...
     This is where Liquid-Fluoride Thorium Reactors show why they are the safer alternative. The physical state of the reaction (liquid) allows for the fuel to take any shape it needs and, as most liquids, when gas is created in it, it flows to the top where it can be collected as safely removed. This means that there is not a possibility for the structure of the fuel to be compromised and thus no meltdowns can be caused due to the failing structure.
     Not only does the fuel have safety features built in, he design of the reactor itself has one “called a freeze plug” to help protect the reactor from possible meltdowns. The plug is a solid salt that is kept at a constant temperature with a cooling fan to keep it from melting (West, Danny). This design protects against a possible meltdown by protecting the reactor in case of a power loss or a overheating of the reaction. If the power is lost, the fan stops and the plug melts. If the reaction overheats, the plug melts. The liquid is then dropped, in both scenarios, into an underground basin filled with “neutron absorbers” that will halt the reaction (West, Danny). This will prevent a meltdown and keep the surrounding area safe

Questions:

1. How did the content change (even slightly - details matter!) when you re-edited it? Why do you think the content is being communicated more effectively in the re-edited version?

In the edited version of the rough cut I decided to add a section about how there is a safety mechanism proposed by some nuclear researchers that could help in case of a power loss or an overheating of the reactor. I think this builds more of an argument than just saying that the liquid itself is safer.

 

2. How did the form change (even slightly - details matter!) when you re-edited it? Why do you think the form is presenting the content more effectively in the re-edited version?

I think the form stayed the same after editing the rough cut because I stayed with the same MLA format. I added another citing in the paragraph but other than that it is the same.

Open Post to Reviewers

Link to Rough Draft

1. Key information about your particular project that you would like anyone who peer reviews your draft to know

I would just like to know if this draft is clear enough for the audience. I am trying to make it for audiences who have very little knowledge about nuclear energy and I want to make sure all the basics are covered but I am not sure just how much I need to explain.

 

2. Major issues or weaknesses in the “Rough Cut” that you’re already aware of (as well as anything you’d like to know from your editors about those weaknesses)

I think a major weakness is my Conclusion sentence. Any help on this area is greatly appreciated.

 

3. Major virtues or strengths in the “Rough Cut” that you’re already aware of (as well as anything you’d like to know from your editors about those strengths)

I think one of the strengths of my draft is the paragraph about the efficency of Thorium. I feel like I used my sources very well

Reflection

Reflection is one of the best ways to improve. Looking back allows for you to see the mistakes you made and learn how not to make them again.

1. What were some of the successes (or, things that went right) during this week’s process work? Explain, with evidence.

I think the most notable success this week was that I got a good start on the rough draft and should be on my way to finishing it by Tuesday.

 

2. What were some of the challenges (or, things that went wrong) during this week’s process work? Explain, with evidence.

Some of the challenges this week were organizing my research and finding more to support my claims in my essay. The second challenge was deciding to actually do the work. I planned on doing it all on Wednesday, but that didn't happen.

 

3. How do you think next week will go, based on your experiences this week?

 I think next week is going to be interesting, I hope that We won't have to write two drafts because I find that very pointless.

 

4. How are you feeling about the project overall at this point?

I think that this project is going to be my best one yet. Based on the two sections I have written, I feel like the last one is going to be strong.

Production Report 11a

Working on a project in stages can help to make sure that each of its peices is able to function independent of the rest of its parts. Reporting on the progress allows for others to observe the process and insure that I am on track.

Outline Section:
Body #2: Weapons grade Uranium Production

Adaptation: (Sorry about the form, it messed during the pasting process)

With all these merits of Thorium reactors, it can be hard to find a reasonable fault that could overshadow them. The most prevalent argument against Thorium reactors is the capability for them to produce Weapons-grade Uranium for use in nuclear bombs. According to an article published by Nature.com, the process by which Thorium become fissile will produce Protractium-233 which breaks down into Uranium-233, a isotope of Uranium that is commonly used in the production of Uranium bombs. If the Protractium-233 is removed early enough in the process it will naturally decay into Uranium-233 within a few months (Ashley, Stephen F). Not only does this process produce Weapons-grade Uranium, it does so without altering the reaction process and can easily be created without the Atomic Energy Agency knowing, making Nuclear Proliferation increasingly difficult.

So, maybe this is a large fault in the design of the reactors. But it is not one easily exploited. According the article from Nature.com, the amount of energy that is given off by the decaying processes is 50 watts per gram of Protratium-233 (Ashely, Stephen F). This might seem meaningless to someone who isn’t familiar with energy so to put it in perspective, 50 Watts would raise the temperature of 1 gram of water, 12 degrees Celsius which is about 21.6 degrees Fahrenheit. In order for something to be considered weapons-grade it must be 8 kilograms meaning that the amount of energy produced is roughly 400,000 Watts of energy. This amount of energy produced requires large facilities meaning terrorist groups would be unable to carry out the conversion (McKenna, Phil). So the dangers of weapons-grade Uranium falling into the wrong hands are minimized. This leaves governments having the ability to produce the weapons-grade Uranium and with countries like North Korea with the potential to become increasingly dangerous. For this, there is no response and the only thing that can be done is monitor the process as closely as possible to ensure that the Protractium is not extracted and allowed to be made into Uranium.

Question Answers:

1. How did you decide to use form to present your content in the raw material you’ve shared here? How did the conventions of your chosen genre influence your choices?

I used the form of a College Standard Essay because I feel like I can convey my argument better and reference my sources easier. The ability to cite information and the rigid structure of the Standard College Essay were the two conventions that influenced my decision.

 

2. How did the production of this raw material go? What kinds of any hiccups, challenges, successes, creative epiphanies, etc. occurred during the process?

One of the challenges I faced in this production process was trying to find a good rebuttal to the ability for North Korea to get Nuclear weapons. I still am looking, please help.

Peer Review 11b

Peer review is an important step in the creation of a finished product. It allows for outsiders to make sure the person or group working on the project understand what they are doing and help them if they do not. Here is my review.

Title:
Production Report 11b

Author:
Sofia Haserot

Review:
Sofia, since you are doing a video essay, there is not much I can review on the side of form so all I can do is give you advise on some things you might want to consider when you edit the video. One of the main things I would suggest is videos of the candidates that you plan on talking about. This will give the audience a good idea of what the candidates are like and how they act. I hope this project goes well. Good Luck!

Peer Review 11a

Peer review is an important step in the creation of a finished product. It allows for outsiders to make sure the person or group working on the project understand what they are doing and help them if they do not. Here is my review.

Title:
Production Report B

Author:
Sarah Hansen

Review:
First off, wow... If this is your second body paragraph, your essay is going to be massive like Trump's ego. Your section is very well written and I can hear your voice being clearly expressed though out the section. I like how you separated the definition of a sociopath into four distinct parts and went on to explain how Trump exhibits them. The one thing that I would like to mention is how you have the parts separated is kind of long. I don't think it is necissary to include such long quotes but instead paraphrase them or make them shorter. Other than that I think you did a great job. Good luck on the rest of the project!

Production Report 11b

Working on a project in stages can help to make sure that each of its peices is able to function independent of the rest of its parts. Reporting on the progress allows for others to observe the process and insure that I am on track.

Outline Section:
Body #1: Abundance of Thorium

Adaptation:

The first major argument for Thorium based reactors is the abundance and efficiency of Thorium compared to Uranium as a source of fuel. The major problem with the current situation of nuclear energy is the amount of Uranium that is available to be used as a source of nuclear fuel. According to Danny West of the University of San Francisco, there is only enough Uranium left in the world for nuclear fission for “another 100 years” at the current consumption rate of uranium (West, Danny). This sounds like enough energy until the world discovers the ultimate source of renewable energy, right? It’s not that simple. There might be enough Uranium on earth but obtaining that Uranium, refining it, and selling it is going to become too much for the world to handle. Thorium on the other hand is much more of an accessible resource. Thorium is so common that it is found in almost any mine where rare-earth metals are mined (Boyle, Rebecca). It’s so common that miners don’t see it as something they need to collect and store. The market for Thorium is so small and the price is incredibly lower for a gram of Thorium than it is for a gram of Uranium, which according to the United States Department of Energy’s page on Prices and Certificates has the price for has Uranium being 2.25 times as expensive as Thorium (“Prices and Certificates”). The reason for this giant gap can be attributed to the large amount of Thorium compared to Uranium, roughly “three to four times more naturally abundant,” (Ashley, Stephen F.).

Added to this abundance bonus for Thorium, is the efficiency of the Nuclear fuel that it is used to create. The current design of Uranium reactors have a large flaw when it comes to the efficiency of the fuel. The fuel rods in Light Water Reactors (LWRs) are solid and are coated in Zirconium which doesn’t allow anything in or out of the rod. This means that during nuclear fission, the gases produced are not able to escape without risk of damaging the structure of the rod[1]. This means that the rod is not completely used up in the reaction and what is not used is simply discarded with the used material (West, Danny). This unnecessary waste of material doesn’t happen with LFTRs. Because the Thorium fuel is already a liquid the gases can easily escape without damaging the fuel and allowing the fuel to reacting completely. When looking at the production of electricity of the two types of reactors “a 1 GW LWR” uses around 225 tons of Low Enriched Uranium (LEU) per year, whereas a LFTR would only use “one ton of processed thorium” (West, Danny). This is a massive difference in material needed to produce the same amount of electricity. With the combined abundance and efficiency of Thorium based reactors it is clear that Thorium is on the path to being a viable source of energy.

---

[1] During Nuclear fission, gases like Hydrogen and Xenon are produced in the decaying process which are highly radioactive.

Question Answers:

1. How did you decide to use form to present your content in the raw material you’ve shared here? How did the conventions of your chosen genre influence your choices?

I used the form of a College Standard Essay because I feel like I can convey my argument better and reference my sources easier. The ability to cite information and the rigid structure of the Standard College Essay were the two conventions that influenced my decision.
 

2. How did the production of this raw material go? What kinds of any hiccups, challenges, successes, creative epiphanies, etc. occurred during the process?
There were not any obstacles in adapting this content section. The production of the raw material went very well, It actually went quicker than expected.

Reflection

Reflection is one of the best ways to improve. Looking back allows for you to see the mistakes you made and learn how not to make them again.

1. What were some of the successes (or, things that went right) during this week’s process work? Explain, with evidence.

This week I felt that my successes were very small. Not that I had a lot of failures, but that they weren't that impactful on the project as a whole. I got all my research done early and was not rushed into the process. I also was able to find a topic that I am interested in, which is a pretty nice success story.

2. What were some of the challenges (or, things that went wrong) during this week’s process work? Explain, with evidence.

One of the challenges that I faced this week was finding peices to peer review. Every place I looked the blog posts were too good to critique, in my opinon. Even the ones I chose were really good and I had a very hard time finding something to advise on.

3. How do you think next week will go, based on your experiences this week?

I thinik next week will go pretty smooth because most of the research was done this week and now all I have to do is arrange it and analyze it. I just hope that I won't be overwhelmed by my other classes.

 

4. How are you feeling about the project overall at this point?

I am feeling pretty good about the project at this point. I feel like I have a good argument and that I can argue it fairly well.

Peer Review 10a

Peer review is an important step in the creation of a finished product. It allows for outsiders to make sure the person or group working on the project understand what they are doing and help them if they do not. Here is my review.

Title:
Production Schedule

Author:
Alexis Morrison

Peer Review Activity:
Resource Recommendation on Production Schedule

Review:
First off, I'd like to say that I really liked how you made the production schedule into sections that were similar and explained what needed to be done in them. I think this makes it makes it easier to see what needs to be done at around the same time. The only problem with this would be that you have to go searching around to find which task you want to do first. A suggestion I have is that you might want to spread out you production schedule a bit because I see that most of the work is done on Friday and Saturday. This might be a lot of work to do in two days with the blog posts and other homework as well. Other than that, good job! Good Luck on the Project.

Peer Review 10b

Peer review is an important step in the creation of a finished product. It allows for outsiders to make sure the person or group working on the project understand what they are doing and help them if they do not. Here is my review.

Title:
Content Outline

Author:
Jason Boley

Peer Review Activity:
Outlining Suggestion

Review:
Overall I found this outline to be very well made. Jason clearly stated what he wanted to put in each of his body sections and then explained their importance to the work as a whole. I liked how you stated where you would look to get facts to support your claim and how you would be addressing the opposing side's opinion. One thing that I did notice in the outline was when you stated your topic you would be debating. I feel like saying the opposition's argument is "ridiculous" might come off as a little strong. Other than that your Content Outline is great. Good Luck on the project!

Production Schedule

Without a schedule, things can be forgotten. In order for everything to be finished in a project it is important to create a project schedule with what needs to be done and when. Here is my Producton schedule for project 3.

Task	Location	Day	Time	Resources	Complete by	Changes
Research	Computer	Thursday	Afternoon	Computer	Thursday night
Body #1	Computer	Friday	Afternoon	Computer	Friday Night
Body #2	Computer	Friday	Afternoon	Computer	Friday Night
Body #3	Computer	Saturday	Morning	Computer	Saturday Noon
Introduction	Computer	Saturday	Afternoon	Computer	Saturday Evening
Conclusion	Computer	Saturday	Afternoon	Computer	Saturday Evening

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