The Future of Nuclear Power to The Global Energy Supply Essay Please use the following link to write this essay. The goal of the paper assignment is to as

The Future of Nuclear Power to The Global Energy Supply Essay Please use the following link to write this essay.

The goal of the paper assignment is to assess your ability to read, synthesize, and interpret original scientific articles related to the environmental impacts of energy acquisition and consumption. An original scientific article is a peer-reviewed report of research activity written by the scientists that performed the research. In other words, original scientific articles are primary sources of information, containing original data, analytical results, and interpretations. Successfully synthesizing and interpreting an original scientific article on energy and environmental issues will demonstrate an increase in your scientific literacy on these topics.

The assignment will require you to choose one original scientific article from two collections of articles posted on Canvas. The articles in the first collection involve topics discussed in Weeks 1-8 whereas the articles in the second collection cover topics discussed in Weeks 9-14. Each scientific article is accompanied by a summary article published as either a press release or a popular media article. These summary articles will help you understand the original scientific work and choose the article that is the most interesting to you.

Your paper should cover the following components:

Clearly describe the hypothesis or question addressed in the scientific article in your own words.

Summarize the methods, results, and interpretation of those results of the authors of the scientific article.

State the significance of the discovery or scientific study – More than what and when, why is the result of the scientific study important in understanding the environmental impacts of energy acquisition and consumption?

Evaluate the claims of the author(s) – Which of the authors’ claims/interpretations do you find to be the most or least convincing? Why or why not? Be specific here. It’s the thought process that counts, not whether or not I agree with you. Feel free to incorporate additional scientific articles to support your argument.*

* For each additional scientific article you incorporate into your final paper I’ll award a 1 point of extra credit, up to a maximum of 3 pts.

Anywhere from 3-5 pages is a good target for length. If you need more than 5 pages to make your point, feel free to do so. However, if you have less than 2 pages, you probably forgot something, so go back and double-check.

Formatting Requirements:

Word document (.doc, docx) file format. Name your document Last Name_Article Title (i.e.: Wood_Wind Energy is Mind Blowing.doc)
Paper must be typed, double-spaced, 10-12 pt. Times New Roman or Calibri font, 1” margins
The paper should as long as necessary to communicate the required information and most of you should be able to accomplish this in 3-5 pages.
When using in-text citations or writing your reference list, please use APA guidelines.

Submission Instructions:

Submit your paper as a Word document or PDF (no files in “.pages” format, please) via Canvas.

Grading:

Please check the final paper rubric on Canvas. Below, you will find a list of suggestions for ensuring a good grade on your final paper.

Paragraphs should be indented and organized with a topic sentence and supporting sentences. Make sure your sentence structure is grammatically correct (punctuations, correct sentence phrasing, etc.).
This is a critique of an academic article so your writing style should reflect this. Your summary should be an objective/neutral summary of the main points of the article with some detail. The summary should NOT have a persuasive tone.
Do NOT quote anything in the summary. The challenge of a good summary is identifying, rephrasing, and condensing the important points of the article. Use in-text citations in your final paper, but no quotes. Be careful of plagiarism in your rephrasing. Avoid redundancy.
Science writing tends to be literal so make sure the meaning of the words you choose make sense in the context you are using them. Strive for a concise summary that covers the main points of the article. When considering a simple word and a complicated one, always chose the simple one. When considering a simple sentence structure and a complicated one, always chose the simple one.
Avoid using “I” statements except in the evaluation portion of the paper. Avoid a “conversational” style of writing or wordy phrases such as “the fact that” or “it should be noted that.”
Read the article more than once. Take notes. You may have to read it multiple times to determine the main points and essential information.
Organize your thoughts using an outline.
Write a rough draft several days before the deadline to allow for time to edit.
Edit your rough draft at least twice. Have someone look at it with fresh eyes to catch the typos and punctuation errors you missed. Read your paper out loud to check that sentences flow well and read clearly.

Option 1: Whole-soil carbon flux in response to warming by Hicks Pries et al. (2017)

Original scientific publication

Description of methods

Summary article (Links to an external site.)

Option 2: Biofuel blends in jets reduce particle emissions by Moore et al. (2017)

Original scientific publication

Summary article (Links to an external site.)

Option 3: Biofuel land use change and carbon debt by Fargione et al. (2008)

Original scientific publication

Description of methods

Summary article (Links to an external site.)

Option 4: Prevented mortality from historical and projected nuclear power by Kharecha & Hansen (2013)

Original scientific publication

Summary article Grading Criterion
9
7
5
Explicitly identifies and describes the original
research question or hypothesis addressed by
the scientific article
States the original research question or
hypothesis with minimal description or context.
The impetus behind the study is still unclear.
The original research question or hypothesis
implied without a clear description. The real
must read between the lines to figure it out.
Research Hypothesis/Question
The methodology, results, and conclusions of
the original scientific article are summarized so
clearly and succinctly that I can “get the gist”
without reading the paper or the article.
Some relevant details are provided, but
discussion of at least one of the three key
components (i.e., methodology, results,
conclusions) is completely missing.
Synthesis
Summary is inconsistently detailed. One of the
key components of the scientific study (ie,
methodology, results, and conclusions) is not
described in sufficient detail. I still need to
consult the original work to really understand
what’s going on.
Significance is clearly stated but is not placed in
context or is too generalized.
Significance is mentioned, but is vague, unc
and/or stated without any supporting contex
Significance
Significance of the scientific results is clearly
stated and contextualized with current issues
and/or ongoing research on the environmental
impacts of energy acquisition and consumption.
Evaluation of Claim
Evaluation of the author’s claim is thoughtful, Evaluation of the author’s claim appears with
thorough, and contextualized with current minimal rationale or does not focus on any
issues and/or ongoing research on the
specific aspects of the original scientific study
environmental impacts of energy acquisition Additional context is required to follow your
and consumption. The evaluation is focused on thinking.
specific aspects of the original scientific study.
Evaluation of the author’s claims is present,
is simply a statement of support/rejection or
focuses on writing style of the original scieni
article. No rationale specific to the study is
provided
(i.e., your educated opinion)
Document is easily readable over a cup of
coffee, very few errors.
Document is decent, but could have used
further proofreading
Document is hard to read and thoroughly
riddled with typographical errors.
Style & Formatting
Some Rubric
Criteria
Ratings
Pts
Research
Hypothesis/Question
7.0 pts
0.0 pts
No
Marks
9.0 pts
Exceptional
Explicitly
identifies and
describes the
original research
question or
hypothesis
addressed by the
scientific article.
Proficient
Identifies the
original
research
question or
hypothesis
with minimal
description or
context.
5.0 pts
Novice
The original research
question or
hypothesis is implied
without a clear
description. The
reader must read
between the lines to
figure it out.
1.0 pts
Poor
No research question is
identified, described, or
implied. It is completely
unclear what the
original authors of the
article were trying to
accomplish.
9.0 pts
Synthesis
7.0 pts
Proficient
5.0 pts
Novice
1.0 pts
Poor
0.0 pts
No
Marks
9.0 pts
Exceptional
The methodology, results,
and conclusions of the
original scientific article
are summarized so clearly
and succinctly that I can
“get the gist” without
reading the paper or the
article.
Summary is
very detailed,
but I still need
to consult the
original work to
really
understand
what’s going
on.
Some relevant details
are provided, but
discussion of at least
one of the three key
components (i.e.,
methodology, results,
conclusions) is
completely missing.
It is
completely
unclear what
the
methodology,
results or
conclusions
were.
9.0 pts
Significance
5.0 pts
Novice
0.0 pts
No
Marks
9.0 pts
Exceptional
Significance of the scientific
results is clearly stated and
contextualized with current
issues and/or ongoing research
on the environmental impacts
of energy acquisition and
consumption.
7.0 pts
Proficient
Significance
is clearly
stated and
well-
articulated,
but it is not
placed in
context.
Significance is
mentioned, but
is vague,
unclear, and/or
stated without
any supporting
context.
1.0 pts
Poor
It is completely
unclear why this
was published at
all; perhaps it’s
just something
your friend told
you once.
9.0 pts
viarks
The methodology, results,
and conclusions of the
original scientific article
are summarized so clearly
and succinctly that I can
“get the gist” without
reading the paper or the
article.
Summary is
very detailed,
but I still need
to consult the
original work to
really
understand
what’s going
on.
Some relevant details
are provided, but
discussion of at least
one of the three key
components (i.e.,
methodology, results,
conclusions) is
completely missing.
It is
completely
unclear what
the
methodology,
results or
conclusions
marks
9.0 pts
9.0 pts
were.
Significance
0.0 pts
No
Marks
9.0 pts
Exceptional
Significance of the scientific
results is clearly stated and
contextualized with current
issues and/or ongoing research
on the environmental impacts
of energy acquisition and
consumption
7.0 pts
Proficient
Significance
is clearly
stated and
well-
articulated,
but it is not
placed in
context.
5.0 pts
Novice
Significance is
mentioned, but
is vague,
unclear, and/or
stated without
any supporting
context.
1.0 pts
Poor
It is completely
unclear why this
was published at
all; perhaps it’s
just something
your friend told
you once.
9.0 pts
Evaluation of Claim
7.0 pts
Proficient
1.0 pts
Poor
0.0 pts
No
Marks
9.0 pts
Exceptional
Evaluation of the author’s
claim is thoughtful, thorough,
and contextualized with
current issues and/or
ongoing research on the
environmental impacts of
energy acquisition and
consumption.
5.0 pts
Novice
Evaluation of the
author’s claims is
present, but is
simply a
statement of
support or
rejection. No
rationale is
provided
Evaluation of the
author’s claim
appears with
minimal
rationale.
Additional
context is
required to
follow your
thinking
9.0 pts
Claims are not
evaluated in
any
perceptible
way:
apparently
you can
neither
confirm nor
deny…”
Style & Formatting
9.0 pts
7.0 pts
5.0 pts
Novice
0.0 pts
Proficient
No
Marks
Exceptional
Document is easily
readable over a cup
of coffee; very few
errors.
Document is
decent, but could
have used further
proofreading.
9.0 pts
1.0 pts
Poor
Either you didn’t
turn it in or it’s
written in an
invisible font.
Document is hard to
read and thoroughly
riddled with
typographical errors.
Total Points: 45.0

Purchase answer to see full
attachment

Submit a Comment