operation of U.S. commercial nuclear power plants
Order ID 53563633773 Type Essay Writer Level Masters Style APA Sources/References 4 Perfect Number of Pages to Order 5-10 Pages Description/Paper Instructions
operation of U.S. commercial nuclear power plants
Post an evaluation of critical analysis within the context of a literature review, using your selected business research study as evidence for your assertions. Your evaluation should include the following:
- Briefly describe the study’s key components, such as purpose, problem, framework, and findings.
- Assess the study’s viability within a literature review, including characteristics like current knowledge, substantive data, and relevance. Be sure to include supportive examples.
- Explain how critical analysis of the literature on your topic (problem/phenomenon) can inform your view of the problem and your ultimate research philosophy. Be sure to include supportive examples.
Be sure to support your work with a minimum of two specific citations from this week’s Learning Resources and at least one additional scholarly source.
Gregory
Continued operation of U.S. commercial nuclear power plants is dependent on the long-term viability of the reactors in operation and the ability of operators and manufacturers to construct new reactors. Construction costs and project schedule adherence is a critical element to maintain budget and prevent project delays. Lovering, Yip, and Nordhaus (2016) analyzed nuclear construction costs and related variables to determine the potential impact on future new construction reactor projects.
Key Components of the Study
Lovering et al. (2016) conducted a detailed analysis of global commercial nuclear construction projects from 1954 through 2015 through a quantitative methodology as described by Saunders, Lewis, and Thornhill (2015). The research included construction data from the United States, France, Canada, South Korea, Russia, and other European sources. The data analysis consisted of an evaluation of the overnight construction costs (OCC) of demonstration reactors, reactors before Three Mile Island (TMI), and reactors following TMI. Additionally, Lovering et al. (2016) normalized cost data to a 2010 reference point for consistency when comparing projects of various countries, and addressed long-term project financing impacts as well. The results of the study showed an increase in OCC for large-scale commercial reactors, especially within the United States. Lovering et al. (2017) proposed further study in areas such as schedule management.
Viability of the Study
The study is significant and has a broad scope, gathering information from construction projects to 1954, consolidating sufficient data to show cost trends. However, the conclusions of Lovering et al. (2016) have come into question through additional analysis conducted by Koomey, Hultman, and Grubler (2017). Koomey et al. (2017) submit that the data analysis techniques and comparisons between countries are inaccurate and data was utilized that substantiated Lovering et al. (2016) results. Additionally, Koomey et al. (2017) submit that Lovering et al. (2016) failed to provide the data sets used to base their research and conclusions, rendering those conclusions questionable. Further analysis of the raw data is justified. However, the trend results and the additional recommendations made by Lovering are worthy of consideration. Although I agree with a majority of the assertions of Koomey et al. (2017), Portugal-Pereira, Ferreira, Cunha, Szklo, Schaeffer, and Araujo (2018) validate the trends showing rising costs. Therefore, the Lovering et al. (2016) study is worthy of consideration.
Critical Analysis of the Literature
My proposed doctoral study problem will evaluate construction and operating costs and the lack of effective management interventions to maintain control of those costs. I submit that the initial burden of proof has to be that nuclear costs are out of line with similar large-scale projects. The Lovering et al. (2016) study consolidates global data and demonstrates rising costs, which is one segment of the argument. Critical analysis, as described by Saunders et al. (2015, p. 75), occurs through a comparison of the Koomey et al. (2017) rebuttal, and the complementary research provided by Portugal-Pereira et al. (2019). The three studies collaborate in a trending sense and support my assertions that costs are rising. Additionally, alignment exists between the research results and my practical philosophies, as cost competitiveness is a growing concern for nuclear power operators (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2018).
Conclusion
A literature review is a detailed analysis of the reference material associated with a specific topic of study and a synthesis of the conclusions and projections of the authors. The independent scholar utilizes the information in the reference material to gain an understanding of the topic through the knowledge and efforts of previous scholars and subject experts (Center for Research Quality, 2015). The literature review demonstrates the independent scholar’s mastery of the subject material and assures the evaluators the scholar can proceed with additional research and data analysis.
Greg Lindamood
References
Center for Research Quality (Producer). (2015). Literature reviews: Common errors made when conducting a literature review [Video file]. Available from https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=27&v=NiDHOr3NHRA
Koomey, J., Hultman, N. E., & Grubler, A. (2017). A reply to historical construction costs of global nuclear power reactors. Energy Policy, 102, 640-643. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2016.03.052
Lovering, J. R., Yip, A., & Nordhaus, T. (2016). Historical construction costs of global nuclear power reactors. Energy Policy, 91, 371-382. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2016.01.011
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. (2018). The future of nuclear energy in a carbon-constrained world. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Retrieved from https://energy.mit.edu
Portugal-Pereira, J., Ferreira, P., Cunha, J., Szklo, A., Schaeffer, R., & Araujo, M. (2018). Better late than never, but never late is better: Risk assessment of nuclear power construction projects. Energy Policy, 120, 158-166. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2018.05.041
Saunders, M. N. K., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2015). Research methods for business students (7th ed.). Essex, England: Pearson Education Limited.
Joshua
Components of the Study
The purpose of my doctoral research is to analyze the effect of leadership styles on employee engagement and retention in the United States Air Force. As defined last week, the target population for my Doctoral Study will be Active Duty and Reserve members of aviation units supporting combat coded fighter units. The critical components of the study will be an analysis of multiple organizations (primarily focused in Air Combat Command) and numerous subgroups to include senior leadership, front line managers and entry-level technicians. The problem will focus on leadership styles used and their effectiveness in employee engagement along with a focus on job satisfaction and leadership’s impact on retention.
After a search of the Walden database, I was able to locate numerous studies on leadership styles and its effect on employee engagement. Mula (2013), focused on the impact of transformational leadership, emotional intelligence and their ability to improve command climates, improve productivity and make a discernable impact on the effort to increase retention. This study provides a viable and substantive enough to include in my literature review.
Viability of the study
Doctoral students use a literature review to examine published research on a topic that applies to their focal area in their doctoral research (Walden University Academic Skills, 2015). Furthermore, Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill (2015), identified that scholars must cover a significant amount of literature to help develop an understanding of previous research.
When analyzing the study by Mula (2013), I have found significant parallels between the topic, problem statement, and framework of the study. The most significant area that the study emphasizes is the impact of transformational leadership on subordinates and the negative impacts of toxic leadership on employee retention in the military (Mula, 2013).
Critical Analysis of the Literature
The focus of critically analyzing literature is to constructively and critically develop an understanding of a subject and develop a clear argument about the published literature that could support your research question (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2015). A critical review of the study showed that the author found a correlation between poor leadership and members departing the service. This quantitative analysis provided insight into the techniques that could apply to my proposed research.
References
Mula, D. M. (2013). Examining emotional intelligence and transformational leadership within U.S. army national guard leaders (Order No. 3566508). Available from Dissertations & Theses @ Walden University. (1416422122). Retrieved from https://ezp.waldenulibrary.org/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/docview/1416422122?accountid=14872
Saunders, M. N. K., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2015). Research methods for business students (7th ed.). Essex, England: Pearson Education Limited.
Walden University Academic Skills Center. (2015). ASC success strategies: Critical reading. Retrieved from http://academicguides.waldenu.edu/ASCsuccess/ASCcriticalreading
RUBRIC
QUALITY OF RESPONSE NO RESPONSE POOR / UNSATISFACTORY SATISFACTORY GOOD EXCELLENT Content (worth a maximum of 50% of the total points) Zero points: Student failed to submit the final paper. 20 points out of 50: The essay illustrates poor understanding of the relevant material by failing to address or incorrectly addressing the relevant content; failing to identify or inaccurately explaining/defining key concepts/ideas; ignoring or incorrectly explaining key points/claims and the reasoning behind them; and/or incorrectly or inappropriately using terminology; and elements of the response are lacking. 30 points out of 50: The essay illustrates a rudimentary understanding of the relevant material by mentioning but not full explaining the relevant content; identifying some of the key concepts/ideas though failing to fully or accurately explain many of them; using terminology, though sometimes inaccurately or inappropriately; and/or incorporating some key claims/points but failing to explain the reasoning behind them or doing so inaccurately. Elements of the required response may also be lacking. 40 points out of 50: The essay illustrates solid understanding of the relevant material by correctly addressing most of the relevant content; identifying and explaining most of the key concepts/ideas; using correct terminology; explaining the reasoning behind most of the key points/claims; and/or where necessary or useful, substantiating some points with accurate examples. The answer is complete. 50 points: The essay illustrates exemplary understanding of the relevant material by thoroughly and correctly addressing the relevant content; identifying and explaining all of the key concepts/ideas; using correct terminology explaining the reasoning behind key points/claims and substantiating, as necessary/useful, points with several accurate and illuminating examples. No aspects of the required answer are missing. Use of Sources (worth a maximum of 20% of the total points). Zero points: Student failed to include citations and/or references. Or the student failed to submit a final paper. 5 out 20 points: Sources are seldom cited to support statements and/or format of citations are not recognizable as APA 6th Edition format. There are major errors in the formation of the references and citations. And/or there is a major reliance on highly questionable. The Student fails to provide an adequate synthesis of research collected for the paper. 10 out 20 points: References to scholarly sources are occasionally given; many statements seem unsubstantiated. Frequent errors in APA 6th Edition format, leaving the reader confused about the source of the information. There are significant errors of the formation in the references and citations. And/or there is a significant use of highly questionable sources. 15 out 20 points: Credible Scholarly sources are used effectively support claims and are, for the most part, clear and fairly represented. APA 6th Edition is used with only a few minor errors. There are minor errors in reference and/or citations. And/or there is some use of questionable sources. 20 points: Credible scholarly sources are used to give compelling evidence to support claims and are clearly and fairly represented. APA 6th Edition format is used accurately and consistently. The student uses above the maximum required references in the development of the assignment. Grammar (worth maximum of 20% of total points) Zero points: Student failed to submit the final paper. 5 points out of 20: The paper does not communicate ideas/points clearly due to inappropriate use of terminology and vague language; thoughts and sentences are disjointed or incomprehensible; organization lacking; and/or numerous grammatical, spelling/punctuation errors 10 points out 20: The paper is often unclear and difficult to follow due to some inappropriate terminology and/or vague language; ideas may be fragmented, wandering and/or repetitive; poor organization; and/or some grammatical, spelling, punctuation errors 15 points out of 20: The paper is mostly clear as a result of appropriate use of terminology and minimal vagueness; no tangents and no repetition; fairly good organization; almost perfect grammar, spelling, punctuation, and word usage. 20 points: The paper is clear, concise, and a pleasure to read as a result of appropriate and precise use of terminology; total coherence of thoughts and presentation and logical organization; and the essay is error free. Structure of the Paper (worth 10% of total points) Zero points: Student failed to submit the final paper. 3 points out of 10: Student needs to develop better formatting skills. The paper omits significant structural elements required for and APA 6th edition paper. Formatting of the paper has major flaws. The paper does not conform to APA 6th edition requirements whatsoever. 5 points out of 10: Appearance of final paper demonstrates the student’s limited ability to format the paper. There are significant errors in formatting and/or the total omission of major components of an APA 6th edition paper. They can include the omission of the cover page, abstract, and page numbers. Additionally the page has major formatting issues with spacing or paragraph formation. Font size might not conform to size requirements. The student also significantly writes too large or too short of and paper 7 points out of 10: Research paper presents an above-average use of formatting skills. The paper has slight errors within the paper. This can include small errors or omissions with the cover page, abstract, page number, and headers. There could be also slight formatting issues with the document spacing or the font Additionally the paper might slightly exceed or undershoot the specific number of required written pages for the assignment. 10 points: Student provides a high-caliber, formatted paper. This includes an APA 6th edition cover page, abstract, page number, headers and is double spaced in 12’ Times Roman Font. Additionally, the paper conforms to the specific number of required written pages and neither goes over or under the specified length of the paper. GET THIS PROJECT NOW BY CLICKING ON THIS LINK TO PLACE THE ORDER
CLICK ON THE LINK HERE: https://www.perfectacademic.com/orders/ordernow
Also, you can place the order at www.collegepaper.us/orders/ordernow / www.phdwriters.us/orders/ordernow
Do You Have Any Other Essay/Assignment/Class Project/Homework Related to this? Click Here Now [CLICK ME]and Have It Done by Our PhD Qualified Writers!!