英文综述proposal

两篇英文proposal。网址 Proposal to Research the Storage Facilityfor Spent Nuclear Fuel at Yucca MountainRoger BloomOctober 1997Introduction Nuclear power plants produce more than 20 percent of the electricity used in the United States [Murray, 1989]. Unfortunately, nuclear fission, the process used to create this large amount energy, creates significant amounts of high level radioactive waste. More than 30,000 metric tons of nuclear waste have arisen from U.S. commercial reactors as well as high level nuclear weapons waste, such as uranium and plutonium [Roush, 1995]. Because of the build-up of this waste, some power plants will be forced to shut down. To avoid losing an important source of energy, a safe and economical place to keep this waste is necessary. This document proposes a literature review of whether Yucca Mountain is a suitable site for a nuclear waste repository. The proposed review will discuss the economical and environmental aspects of a national storage facility. This proposal includes my methods for gathering information, a schedule for completing the review, and my qualifications.Statement of Problem On January 1, 1998, the Department of Energy (DOE) must accept spent nuclear fuel from commercial plants for permanent storage [Clark, 1997]. However, the DOE is undecided on where to put this high level radioactive waste. Yucca Mountain, located in Nevada, is a proposed site. There are many questions regarding the safety of the Yucca Mountain waste repository. Researchers at Los Alamos National Laboratory disagree over the long-term safety of the proposed high level nuclear waste site located in Nevada. In 1994, Charles Bowman, a researcher at Los Alamos, developed a theory claiming that years of storing waste in the mountain may actually start a nuclear chain reaction and explode, similar to an atomic bomb [Taubes, 1995]. The stir caused by theory suggests that researchers have not explored all sides of the safety issue concerning potentially hazardous situations at Yucca Mountain. Bowman's theory that Yucca Mountain could explode is based upon the idea that enough waste will eventually disperse through the rock to create a critical mass. A critical mass is an amount of fissile material, such as plutonium, containing enough mass to start a neutron chain reaction [Murray, 1989]. Bowman argues that if this chain reaction were started underground, the rocks in the ground would help keep the system compressed and speed up the chain reaction [Taubes, 1995]. A chain reaction formed underground could then generate huge amounts of energy in a fraction of a second, resulting in a nuclear blast. A nuclear explosion of this magnitude would emit large amounts of radioactivity into the air and ground water. Another safety concern is the possibility of a volcanic eruption in Yucca Mountain. The long-term nuclear waste storage facility needs to remain stable for at least 10,000 years to allow the radioactive isotopes to decay to natural levels [Clark, 1997]. There are at least a dozen young volcanoes within 40 kilometers of the proposed Yucca Mountain waste site [Weiss, 1996]. The proximity of Yucca Mountain to these volcanoes makes it possible to have a volcanic eruption pass through the spent fuel waste repository. Such a volcanic eruption could release damaging amounts of radioactivity to the environment.Objectives I propose to review the available literature about using Yucca Mountain as a possible repository for spent nuclear fuel. In this review I will achieve the following two goals: (1) explain the criteria for a suitable repository of high-level radioactive waste; and (2) determine whether Yucca Mountain meets these criteria. According to the Department of Energy (DOE), a repository for high-level radioactive waste must meet several criteria including safety, location, and economics [Roush, 1995]. Safety includes not only the effect of the repository on people near the site, but also people along the transportation routes to the site. In my research I will consider both groups of people. As far as location, a waste site cannot be in an area with a large population or near a ground water supply. Also, because one of the most significant factors in determining the life span of a possible repository is how long the waste storage canisters will remain in tact, the waste site must be located in a dry climate to eliminate the moisture that can cause the waste canisters to corrode. The economics involved in selecting a site is another criterion. At present, the Department of Energy (DOE) has spent more than 1.7 billion dollars on the Yucca Mountain project [Taubes, 1995]. For that reason, much pressure exists to select Yucca Mountain as a repository site; otherwise, this money would have been wasted. Other costs, though, have to be considered. For instance, how economical is it to transport radioactive waste across several states to a single national site? I will try to account for as many of these other costs as possible. After explaining the criteria, I will assess how well Yucca Mountain meets those criteria. In this assessment, I will not assign a numerical score for each criterion. Rather, I will discuss qualitatively how well Yucca Mountain meets each criterion. In some situations, disagreement exists among experts as to how well Yucca Mountain meets a criterion. In such cases, I will present both sides. In this assessment, only Yucca Mountain will be considered as a possible site. Although many sites in the United States could meet the DOE's established criteria, I will consider only Yucca Mountain because the DOE is considering only Yucca Mountain [Taube, 1995].Plan of Action This section presents my plan for obtaining the objectives discussed in the previous section. There has been an increase of interest in the nuclear industry concerning the Yucca Mountain site because of the January 1,1998, deadline for the DOE. Several journal articles and papers discussing the possibility of Yucca Mountain as a spent fuel repository in our near future have surfaced as a consequence of that interest. These articles and books about the dangers of nuclear waste should provide sufficient information for me to complete my review. The following two paragraphs will discuss how I will use these sources in my research. The first goal of my research is to explain the criteria for determining whether a nuclear waste repository is suitable. For example, will the rock structure be able to withstand human invasion in the future [Clark, 1997]? What will happen if the waste containers corrode and do not last as long as predicted? Will the natural setting contain the waste? To achieve this goal, I will rely on "Background on 40 CFR Part 197 Environmental Standards for Yucca Mountain" [Clark, 1997], the DOE Yucca Mountain home page [1997], and the book Understanding Radioactive Waste [Murray, 1989]. A second goal of my literature review is to evaluate Yucca Mountain meets those criteria. I will base my evaluation on the sources mentioned above as well as specific Environmental Protection Agency standards. I also intend to research the validity of possible environmental disasters, such as the explosion theory. To accomplish this goal, I will rely on the paper presented by Clark [1997], and on the book Blowup at Yucca Mountain [Taubes, 1995]. Because engineering students are the primary audience for my proposed research topic and may not be familiar with the history of nuclear waste, I will provide a background on past methods used for waste storage. People in the nuclear field with some knowledge of the waste problem facing the industry may be a secondary audience.Management Plan This section presents my schedule, costs, and qualifications for completing the proposed research. This research culminates in a formal report, which will be completed by December 5, 1997. To reach this goal, I will follow the schedule presented in Figure 1. Since I already possess literature on the subject of Yucca Mountain as a nuclear waste site, most of my time will be spent sorting through the literature to find key results, and presenting those results to the audience. Figure 1. Schedule for completion of the literature review. The formal presentation will be on October 27, and the formal report will be completed by December 5. Given that all my sources are available through the University of Wisconsin library system, there is no appreciable cost associated with performing this review, unless one takes into consideration the amount of tuition spent on maintaining the university libraries. The only other minor costs are photocopying articles, creating transparencies for my presentation, printing my report, and binding my report. I estimate these expenses will not exceed $20. I am a senior in the Engineering Physics Department at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, majoring in nuclear engineering and physics. I have taken several classes related to nuclear waste, economics, and environmental studies. I believe that these courses will aid me in preparing the proposed review. For further information about my qualifications, see the attached resume.Conclusion More than 30,000 metric tons of nuclear waste have arisen from U.S. commercial reactors as well as high level nuclear weapons waste, such as uranium and plutonium [Roush, 1995]. This document has proposed research to evaluate the possibility of using Yucca Mountain as a possible repository for this spent nuclear fuel. The proposed research will achieve the following goals: (1) explain the criteria necessary to make a suitable high level radioactive waste repository, and (2) determine if Yucca Mountain meets these criteria. The research will include a formal presentation on November 11 and a formal report on December 5.References Clark, Raymond L., "Background on 40 CFR Part 197 Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Yucca Mountain," Proceedings of the 1997 Waste Management Conference (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1997). Kerr, R., "New Way to Ask the Experts: Rating Radioactive Waste Risks," Science, vol.274, (November1996), pp. 913-914. Murray, Raymond L., Understanding Nuclear Waste (Battelle Press, 1989). Roush, W., "Can Nuclear Waste Keep Yucca Mountain Dry-and Safe?" Science, vol. 270, (December 1995), pp. 1761-1762. Taubes, G., "Blowup at Yucca Mountain," Science, vol.268, (June 1995), pp. 1836-1839.

proposal写作格式是：标题（Title）、摘要 (Abstract)、引言(Introduction)、文献综述(Literature Review)、方法(Methods)、结果(Result)、讨论(Discussion)七部分。

1.标题（Title）

简明扼要，内容翔实又吸引人。

其实和中文论文写作差不多，题目不要泛而空，尽量缩小话题范围，这样内容更有针对性。题目要能体现你的研究对象和创新性，至少能勾起阅读全文的兴趣！

2.摘要（Abstract）

300字左右的简要归纳。它应该包括研究问题，研究的理论基础，假说，研究方法以及主要发现。

重中之重，实际就是将RP再浓缩一次。Title+ Abstract就一锤定生死了，剩下部分基本就是abstract的拓展了。

这部分用最简单的话，说明白你的想法！内容包括自己想研究的领域和想法（topic+idea），如果背后有一些大师研究做理论支撑或者实证研究（empirical study）就更好了。

对于建筑类相关专业，empirical study(案例研究/场地调研/问卷访谈等)非常重要，如果连实地都没有去过，何来一手的资料，一手的结论呢。

此处会涉及到original contribution（原创贡献），你的原创性或者说你对这一议题的贡献值有多少。所以摘要的实质也是一种游说/推销，推销你的研究意义所在。

3.引言（Introduction）

主要目的是为你的研究问题提供必要的背景。通常包含以下内容：

描述研究问题、目的。

为你的研究问题提供背景，设定其范围，以体现出它的必要性和重要性。

理论依据，要清楚的指出为什么该研究是值得去做的。

简要描述该研究要解决的主要及次要问题。

明确说明你想要研究的现象。

阐述你的假说或理论。

设定你研究计划的局限或边界，以提供一个清晰的研究重点。

给关键概念下定义。

设定研究计划边界很重要，明确对象，精确打靶。反之，泛泛其谈，文章就很容易大而空，专有名词成堆，什么都说不清楚。

4.文献综述（Literature Review）

确保你不是“重新发明车轮”（意即不是重复前人已有的成果）。

向奠定该研究基础的前人致谢。

说明你对该研究问题的了解。

阐述你对该问题相关的理论和研究的理解。

展现你对相关文献资料的批判评价能力。

显示你整合现有文献的能力。

提供新的理论见解或发展一种新的模式，作为你研究的概念框架。

向你的读者证明该研究计划会对现有文献做出重要的和实质性的贡献。

5.方法(Methods)

非常重要。指导原则就是，应包含足够的信息，以便读者判断该方法是否有效可行。你也应该说明对其他可行方法的看法，以证明你的方法是解决该研究问题最适当和最有效的途径。定性研究+定量研究。

对定量研究来说，方法部分通常包括以下内容：

研究设计-是问卷调查研究还是一个实验室的试验？你将选择什么样的设计？

研究对象或参与者――谁将会参与你的研究？你将采用什么样的抽样程序？

研究手段――你将采用什么样的测量手段或问卷？你为什么要选择这些方法？他们是否有效可靠？

研究步骤――你打算如何开展研究？有哪些过程将被包括？需要多长时间？

方法很重要，但也不必过分纠结这部分。主要体现proposal的可实施性/你的计划性+实力能完成该项研究。这部分后续肯定会在supervisor的指导下有所变更。当然有时间的话，也可以多琢磨会儿。

6.结果（Results）

很显然，在研究计划准备阶段你并没有研究结果。不过，你将收集哪些数据，什么样的统计方法将会用于解答你的研究问题或验证你的假设，关于这些你应该有一些想法。

PS：6和7两部分可以合并为conclusion。就建筑类专业而言，可能不会像生化专业会得出一些数据性的结果。所以最后结尾基本上就是总结重申研究的内容/意义/影响性。

7.讨论（Disscussion）

向读者说明你研究的潜在影响很重要。在交流时你应该热情而自信，但又不能夸大该研究的价值。这就是为什么你还需要说明该研究的局限和不足，可能是因为时间和经济上的限制，也可能是因为你研究领域还是在发展初期。