[Unknown]

Ok my good ol'e english teachers!!! heres another essay of mine for ya'll to tear to piece's hehehhe ^_*






Nuclear Power Plants, Big Mistake


Nuclear plants; A waste of tax money, time and resources. Their waste is hazardous to humans and is nearly impossible to store above ground or below. Don’t forget the security hazard they pose because of the usefulness and/or lethalness of the material they produce.

First of all how much money is the taxpayer dumping into nuclear plants? The constant need for retrofit, repair, and maintenance has also driven operation costs higher and higher. A 1995 EIA(Energy Information Agency) study found that non-fuel plant operating costs rose from about $37 million to $126 million per reactor per year, between 1974 and 1993. However, Nuclear energy supplies only 10.0 percent of the electricity generated in Texas. On the other hand, the Hoover Dam alone produces 3.5 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity. All other costs, except those for flood control, will be repaid within 50 years of the date of installation or as established by Congress.Repayment of the $25 million construction cost allocated to flood control is currently deferred. In addition, Arizona and Nevada each receive $300,000 annually in lieu of taxes.


Secondly, where is the nuclear waste from these plants going? New Mexico is one of the major dump sites for high level waste (Highly Radioactive). Ft. Hancock is another place the government stores low level waste (Radioactive enough to cause cancer)! In the near future The Yucca Mountains are supposed to be an area where high, low and medium level waste is going to be stored. Since 1983, consumers of electricity from Texas nuclear plants have committed $479 million into the federal Nuclear Waste Fund to finance nuclear waste management. Compared to the Hoover Dam which has no nuclear waste to be stored, nuclear power plants are a HUGE waste of money.

Last, but not least, aren’t these plants and storage areas extremely vulnerable?
Think about these three different scenarios. First, a suicide bomber decides to blow up a plant or storage area. If the attack is successful then hundreds of people would die depending on how effective the bomb was and how radioactive the material in that area was. Second scenario an earth Quake rips through a storage area like the Yucca mountains Radioactive material would end up in the water table rendering that area useless for more than twenty four thousand years because of uranium’s half life . Third scenario a terrorist group infiltrates a nuclear plant to have access to radioactive material enabling them to construct a nuclear bomb.

To sum it all up nuclear power plants are not the most responsible way the government could spend tax money. Not to mention how inefficient the plants are at generating electricity compared to the Hoover dam. They are also an enormous temptation to terrorists, because of the causalities they would cause if they were bombed. So, it’s time for the government to pull the plug and shut down all of America’s nuclear power plants!




Resource’s:
1.http://www.romanconcrete.com/docs/hooverdam/hooverdam.htm

2.http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/11feb20051500/edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2005/janqtr/10cfr904.5.htm

3.http://www.nei.org/documents/maps/statebystate/texas.html

4.http://environet.policy.net/proactive/newsroom/release.vtml?id=18534
_________________
Most people would succeed in small things if they were not troubled with such great ambitions.

[NyanNyanKoneko]

I'll start off...

First sentence...

[LeoDraco]

[NyanNyanKoneko]

You make a good point, Leo.

In your example, it would be the call of the author to use a colon, a semicolon, or a period to separate the ideas (all can work). But colons indicate a stronger link than semicolons when comibing sentences: kind of like using the "--" versus a comma.

But anyways, here's when you would definitely use a colon to combine two complete sentences.

Example: "I'm going to tell you what I'm going to do after the game: I'm going to Disneyland." This means, "I'm going to tell you that I am going to Disneyland after the game."

If I wrote, "I'm going to tell you what I'm going to do after the game. I'm going to Disneyland." the meaning changes to say that I'm going to tell you what I'm going to do (which could be anything) after the game, and also I'm going to Disneyland, which is probably why I can't tell you right now.

So you use a colon to combine two complete sentences when they cannot stand by themselves.

You can also use a colon in place of a semi-colon if the relationship between the two sentences are extremely strong, like if the second sentence gives reason to the first.

Example: "I had to see a doctor: the cats cause me to sneeze."

Example 2: "I play Beatmania: my boyfriend hates it."

But, both of these examples are most often used in colloquial speech and not so much for essays. :P

Just for Unknown's edification, if you wanted to write the example above in a formal essay, you should use, "I play beatmania; however, my boyfriend dislikes musically-themed video games." You want to avoid using, "it," and keep your writing style formal.

But I know this is getting all too confusing, so just remember to use semicolons for combining related sentences, and use colons for adding lists / nouns after a sentence for your formal essays. :)
_________________
INFP

[NyanNyanKoneko]

Reading through your essay some more, Unknown, I can pick out a bunch of minor grammatical errors, but the biggest problems your essay has are the following:

1) Your final paragraph begins with "To sum it up." Remove that clause. It's not needed, it's wordy, it's repetative (we can see it's the last paragraph), and it takes away some of the power of your final statement.

2) Remove all rhetorical questions. Each paragraph starts with a rhetorical question. Don't do that.

3) You need to use proper MLA format when writing your bibliography.

4) You have many statements that don't add to your argument. For example, you write, "Think about these three different scenarios." Don't tell your teacher to stop reading and to think about scenarios when you're about to tell him or her all the scenarios.

5) You need to use quotations, and cite your evidence. Example: Hamlet then said, "To be, or not to be." (Shakespeare, 223) Example 2: The Earth's average temperature increased by almost 2 degrees centigrade over the last 200 years (Milligan, 23). You need to cite quotes and data not commonly known that you had to look up; otherwise you're plagerising, even if you list the source on your back page bibliography. Do a google search for MLA citations to learn how to properly cite and document your sources.

6) Go to your library and check out some books. Also, go to lexis-nexis and search for periodicals. While the internet is great, you need some off-line sources.

The biggest thing you need to remember is that you're making an argument. Arguments are best given sticking to bullet points, so to speak. For fun, try rewriting your essay using as few of words as possible. Write essays that sound like you're sticking to the facts. "Nuclear power is bad for America. It's dangerous, expensive, and innefective at reducing pollution."

A simple essay format looks like this:
PP1
- Intro 2-3 sentences
- Thesis + 3 reasons why you believe thesis to be true.
PP2
- Restate reason 1.
- Give introduction to evidence.
- Quote evidence.
- Explain evidence (2 sentences).
PP3
- Restate reason 2
- Give introduction to evidence
- Quote evidence.
- Explain Evidence (2 sentences).
PP4
- Restate reason 3
- Give introduction to evidence
- Quote evidence.
- Explain evidence (2 sentences)
PP5
- Restate thesis, and relate evidence back to thesis.
- Explain why thesis is important / relevant (2-3 sentences).
- Conclude essay.

Page Break.

Bibliography (see MLA standards).

If you stick to this format, remove all needless wordiness, and really come through on the bibliography / citations, minor grammatical errors aside, I promise you at least a B, but you'll probably get a B+ or higher.
_________________
INFP

[NyanNyanKoneko]

Here's what I read... I corrected a few grammatical errors along the way, re-ordered some stuff in a more logical order, elminated some of your wordiness, and added some critiques about your logic.

Nuclear Power Plants: A Big Mistake

Nuclear plants are a waste of tax money as well as human and natural resources. Nuclear waste is hazardous and difficult to store.

Nuclear plants are inneficent at producing energy. Compared to traditional plants like the one found a Niagra falls, Nuclear power costs more money to maintain and use. Although I don't directly compare the cost of a kilowatt hour between the different types of generators, nuclear costs are increasing, almost at the rate of inflation, and other types of energy seem cheaper and get money from the government and repay debts (I don't know if nuclear plants do this also, though).

In addition to operating costs, cleaning up nuclear waste inflates the cost of nuclear power further. Last year, Texas spent 493 million to clean up its nuclear waste.

However, nuclear waste never truely goes away. The government dumps this waste, exposed, on American soil. Radioactive waste causes cancer. We will store this waste on the Yucca Mountains, wherever that is.

Nuclear power plants are vulnerable to something (Unknown, you didn't mention what).
One can only imagine what would happen if a suicide bomber blew up a plant or its nuclear storage area: many would die, and more would be victim to radiation poisoning. In addition, an earthquake could cause nuclear storage facilities to rupture and leak radioactive into the ground water, leaving the water contaminated for 24 thousand years. I came up with a third idea of a terrorist group stealing nuclear fuel rods, and using them to make a nuclear weapon. This doesn't work in reality, however, so I'm making stuff up. (FYI, terrorists can steal nuclear waste and make dirty bombs, but not full-fledged A-Bombs. Nuclear power plants don't use weapons grade uranium.)

Nuclear power plants are too expensive and inefficient at generating electricity compared to the Hoover dam (although, I don't know if they are efficent compared to other means of generating electricity). They pose an enormous risk to the public health should we come in contact with nuclear waste. The government should shut down all of America’s nuclear power plants.
_________________
INFP

[Unknown]

Ok, i think i get what your saying.... your saying that instead of writting in an illogical manner i need to write in a way that all my content flows together and supports itself...

Example: Nuclear plants; A waste of tax money, time and resources. Their waste is hazardous to humans and is nearly impossible to store above ground or below. Don’t forget the security hazard they pose because of the usefulness and/or lethalness of the material they produce.

instead of that for a "thesis statment" it could be rewrittin like this: Nuclear plants are a waste of tax money, time and resources. Their waste is hazardous to humans and is nearly impossible to store above or below ground. Not to mention the security hazard they pose because of there by products lethalness.

Ok, is that any better as far as the thesis statment goes?!?!


(but if someone got hold of fuel rods from a NPP then they could simple enrich it a bit... {or am i totally LOCO ^_*)
_________________
Most people would succeed in small things if they were not troubled with such great ambitions.

[LeoDraco]

[Unknown]

Ok, after reading all the posts i've redone the entire essay (well if you can actually call it an essay anymore i dont know) ^_*



Nuclear Power Plants, Big Mistake



The Chernobyl disaster occurred at 1:23 a.m. on April 26, 1986 at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Pripyat, Ukraine. It is regarded as the worst accident in the history of nuclear power. Because there was no containment building, a plume of radioactive fallout drifted over parts of the western Soviet Union, Eastern and Western Europe, Scandinavia, the British Isles, and eastern North America. Large areas of Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia were badly contaminated, resulting in the evacuation and resettlement of over 336,000 people. About 60% of the radioactive fallout landed in Belarus, according to official post-Soviet data. According to the 2006 TORCH report, half of the radioactive fallout landed outside the three Soviet republics. The disaster released as much as 300 times more radioactive fallout than the atomic bomb of Hiroshima. Some scientists fear that radioactivity will affect the local population for the next several generations.


In addition to the danger of an accident like Chernobyl, nuclear plant waste is hazardous to humans and is nearly impossible to store above or below ground. With the added threat of the security hazard they pose because of their by-products lethalness., the question must be asked: why is taxpayer money and government time and resources being used in such an atrocious manner?


First of all, how much money is the taxpayer dumping into nuclear plants? The constant need for retrofit, repair, and maintenance has driven operation costs higher and higher. A 1995 EIA(Energy Information Agency) study found that non-fuel plant operating costs rose from about $37 million to $126 million per reactor per year, between 1974 and 1993. However, with four plants in Texas the overall amount of electricity produced is just 10%, or appoximatly 19.5 million megawatt-hours.


In comparison, hydroelectric power like the Hoover Dam is energy and fiscally efficient. The Hoover Dam alone produces 35 million megawatt-hours of electricity, suppling part of Arizona, California and Nevada with electricity. All costs except those for flood control were repaid within 50 years of construction. In addition, Arizona and Nevada each receive $300,000 annually in lieu of taxes.


Besides their inefficiency and costliness, nuclear power plants produce hazardous waste that must be disposed of. New Mexico is one of the major dump sites for high level waste (Highly Radioactive). Ft. Hancock Texas is another place the government stores low level waste (Radioactive enough to cause cancer)! In the near future The Yucca Mountains are supposed to be an area where high, low and medium level waste is going to be stored. Since 1983, consumers of electricity from Texas nuclear plants have committed $479 million into the federal Nuclear Waste Fund to finance nuclear waste management. Compared to the Hoover Dam which has no nuclear waste to be stored, nuclear power plants are a huge waste of money.


High operating costs and waste containment issues are bad enough; however, it gets worse. These plants and storage areas are extremely vulnerable. Here are three different scenarios. First, a suicide bomber decides to blow up a plant or storage area. If the attack is successful then hundreds of people would die depending on how effective the bomb was and how radioactive the material in that area was. Second scenario, an earth Quake rips through a storage area like the Yucca mountains. Radioactive material would end up in the water table rendering that area useless for more than 24 thousand years because of uranium’s half life . Third scenario a terrorist group infiltrates a nuclear plant to have access to radioactive material enabling them to construct a dirty bomb.


Security guards at only one out of four nuclear power plants are confident their plant could defeat a terrorist attack, according to interviews conducted by POGO(Project On Government Oversight). The guards say morale is very low and that they are under-equipped, under-manned, and underpaid. Nearly all of the guards interviewed raised concerns about the lack of guidance on the use of deadly force. Guards are currently restricted from using deadly force unless an intruder is wielding a weapon or threatening the life of an individual. If a suicidal terrorist with a backpack (possibly containing explosives) jumped the fence and headed straight for a spent fuel pool or reactor, the guard could only observe and report the event. One guard summed up the problem stating: "If you pull the trigger, you're on your own and you'll need a good lawyer." Clearly there must me a better way to supply America with electricity.


The more research one does the more obvious it becomes that nuclear power plants are not the most responsible way the government could spend tax money. Not to mention how inefficient the plants are at generating electricity compared to the Hoover dam. They are also an enormous temptation to terrorists, because of the causalities they would cause if they were bombed. So, it’s time for the government to pull the plug and shut down all of America’s nuclear power plants!



Works Cited:
1.http://www.romanconcrete.com/docs/hooverdam/hooverdam.htm

2.http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/11feb20051500/edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2005/janqtr/10cfr904.5.htm

3.http://www.nei.org/documents/maps/statebystate/texas.html

4.http://environet.policy.net/proactive/newsroom/release.vtml?id=18534

5.http://www.missourieconomy.org/community/infastructure/nuclear.stm

6.http://www.pogo.org/p/environment/eo-020901-nukepower.html
_________________
Most people would succeed in small things if they were not troubled with such great ambitions.