Comment on Randy's WA2

Randy’s essay has an abrupt start to the introduction paragraph. However he did summarize the details he would touch on later in the body paragraphs. Furthermore for every paragraph he rebutted the arguments to his stand thus supporting his stand. A lot of statistical facts have been supported with references.
However this essay is very technical, and does not touch on social or political views so it’s rather monotonous. I feel that randy can improve on his continuity and unity as some sentences do not link smoothly. Other than these his essay is fine. He touched on the points that the question is looking for and went on further to give arguments which he rebutted on to support his stand.

Comment on Jianlong WA2

Jianlong essay is fine to me except for the fact that he tends to use emotions in his essay. For example, in stating his stand to the question, he used the word 'I' which suggests emotions. This seems to the readers that the writer is not being subjective and is arguing for a cause based on emotions. Other than this, jianlong's style of writing is good and systematic. All the paragraphs are easy to follow and read. His conclusion is also good and concise, straight to the point. His essay can also be improved by adding references from research so that the arguments sound more convincing to the readers. With references, his stand will be stronger and it will also be easier for him to explain his stand.

Comment on Weber's WA2

Hey Weber, generally you have done a good job in introducing the argument of the topic as well as supporting your stand. Your body paragraphs have clear thesis statements that allow readers to grasp the content of the paragraph easily. Further elaborations are also provided to support your arguments and reiterate your stand. Summing up all the relevant points in the conclusion, reaffirms your stand in this essay and also signalling readers the end of essay.

Overall this essay is well written except for a few minor errors, with fluent writing style and minimal grammar mistakes.

Cheers,

peng chen

Comment on PC WA2

Overall, the number of paragraph PC wrote was too many. He could have combined them to form like 4-5 paragraphs which contain 1 intro 2-3 body and lastly a conclusion. He spent quite a chuck in the introduction which contributed 2 paragraphs.There are a few grammar and vocabulary mistakes made throughout the essay but are not noticeable such that it would break the flow of the reader.

His body paragraphs has clear thesis statements that allow the reading to grasp what he is trying to bring across. However, more elaboration should be made to further his stand and support his arguments. He sum up all the points he brought up in the conclusion to reaffirm the readers his points at the end of the essay.

Reference section need more work as we are still unfamiliar with the minor details APA style.

Cheers,

Weber!

Summary on SRM

Solar radiation management (SRM) introduces a geo-engineering method of reducing Earth’s absorption of solar energy by adding light-scattering aerosols to the stratosphere or lengthening the lifetime and reflectivity of the low-lying clouds. However, scientists have been debating against the research on SRM, as it will reduce the political resolve to reduce emissions of greenhouse-gas. SRM is cheap, fast and imperfect, it is estimated that it can reduce the global average rise of temperature at least 100 times more cheaply than emissions cuts. These qualities make it a promising tool against climate change, but it would result in less precipitation and less evaporation. Certain areas would have greater protection than others, hence some countries would be left vulnerable. Furthermore, SRM could weaken monsoon rains and winds, and introduces risks like delaying the recovery of the ozone hole.
With millions of dollars at stake, and the risk it poses, thorough field testing is required. We have to understand the risks involved and from there work out whether it is worth to be implemented and come up with better solutions. A vigilant climate strategy requires adaptation and deep cuts in emissions. A good management SRM carefully in such a way that while managing the associated environmental and political risks, such cuts are not compromised.

Comment on Weber's WA1

Hey Weber, generally you have done a good job in highlighting the points of the question. However, I feel there are a few points you may want to take note. First, the transitions between the paragraphs are not flowing well. You started off with "firstly" but there wasn't a "secondly" or so forth in your essay. Besides that, the example that you have quoted of china in your essay does not have a reference to it. Some figures are needed to support your arguments and convince your audience. Furthermore, I noticed that the conclusion you made concludes something what you have not mentioned in the body paragraphs. This may make your audience confused. Keep working hard, and we all can do better in WA2!

Cheers,

peng chen

Summary of SpringBoard Reading << Nuclear power's new dawn>>

The article i am summarizing on is on the new generation of Nuclear power plants to provide for the rising energy needs of the world and to fight global warming.The article starts the ball kicking by describing a scene at a nuclear power plant in the near future 2035. Describing how the nuclear power plant is run at high operating temperature of 900C and that not a meltdown emergency. Due to the high temperature, it generate hydrogen fuel while active as a power plant. This is a vision of the future from Generation IV International Forum, which is a group of ten nations that is planning nuclear reactors of tomorrow. They envision high efficiency plants, and simple safety feature that prevents any accident from happening. In short, 'meltdown proof'- deliberate actions to cause a disaster is futile, thus making nuclear reactors less of a terrorist target.
As, nuclear power do not produce carbon dioxide as a by-product,it has become alternative as a energy source amidst the rising global temperature. Mainly a few obstacles that have to be overcome to build 'envisioned reactor' are cost, efficiency , feasibility and technological constraint like coolant used in the reactors. Only after these obstacles are overcome, then nuclear power can be considered as the fuel for the future.
The most advance concept is the VHTR( Very High Temperature Reactor) which Japan's Atomic Energy Research Institute already operated a test reactor that reach operating goal of 950 C. At high operating temperature, hydrogen fuel can be obtain from water in turn could replace the dependent on oil for energy needs.
The final section of the article covers on the technical aspect of how the radioactive fuel is fed into the reactor and what designs could make it be accident-proof. Lastly , it is concluded that the current technology is still far from the envision design and considering the current cost of nuclear energy, much improvements/researches are needed. As seen from a comment made by Alain Bugat , who head the France's Atomic Commission, " if we have a working demo of some design by 2030 we will be doing well", the gap of technology to cover before VHTR can be realized is huge.