A critical review of Energy Management in Ireland

The final technical review is titled ‘A critical review of Energy Management in Ireland’. Include your name and ID no. at the top of the page. It is worth 30% of the final grade (breakdown given in Table 1).
The review should be approximately 2500 words, and should (or can) make use of the two short reviews you have already written, with reflections on renewable energy section and Group Project.

You will not be able to cover every topic, so you may not end up using all of every review. You want to make a coherent argument in your review, so may find yourself focussing on just one area. For example the Introduction should explain the bigger picture (making use of the two short reviews) and then you may choose to focus on Energy Management Systems in Ireland, or the single electricity market and transmission/distribution of electricity, or on Renewable energy – these are just examples, the choice is yours and is not limited.

While the main body (Introduction to conclusions) review should be approx. 2500 words, do not submit less than 2000, or exceed 3500. State the Word Count after the conclusion (before reference section).
Each review should have an Introduction, main body and conclusion, followed by list of references.


Introduction and Technical Review

The Introduction should introduce the topic (bigger picture) and signpost the rest of the review. You can choose to use headings, but you do not have to. Remember that it is a Technical Review, so the language style should be technical/formal, as would be used for your Introduction/Literature review of your Final Year Project.


You will be submitting to Turnitin, so no cover sheet is needed – submission is taken as evidence that it is your own work. The deadline for submission is midnight Tuesday 4 December (Week 13), you may submit
before that (and you can resubmit until the deadline).

No submissions accepted after Friday Week 13 – penalty for late submission is 2% review marks per day or part thereof, or 0.6% overall grade. Any reviews
submitted by Tuesday 20 November (Week 11) will receive some preliminary feedback, which can be taken
on board and then review can be resubmitted. This is an OPTION and not obligatory.


Table 1: Breakdown of marks for review


Excellent Good Acceptable Poor Dreadful
Format 3 2 1.5 1 0
(margins, page numbers, table/figure
titles, line spacing, image quality)
Language style 7 5 3 1.5 0
(technical, not colloquial, no rhetorical
questions, punctuation, spelling)
Technical Content 10 8 6 3 0
Introduction, Conclusion (each) 3 2 1.5 1 0
Referencing 4 3 2 1 0


Specifications:


Page margins should be 20mm all around. The font used should be Times New Roman style, size 12,
or similar. Use 1.2 line spacing and have the alignment justified.
Any references are to be in ‘Harvard’ (name & date) format. Eg. Dunn (2007) presented analysis on the greenhouse gas emissions prior to 1990.
Note: in the text
A single author is simple: Dunn (2007) or (Dunn, 2007)
Two authors are: Dunn and Stevens (2007) or (Dunn and Stevens, 2007)
More than two is: Dunn et al. (2007) or (Dunn et al., 2007)


Figures:


Figure should be numbers consecutively from 1 to N. All figures should be titled, with the title beneath the figure and if needed should be referenced accordingly. Excel plots are regarded as figures.

The font size for figures is size 10 or slightly smaller than the text in the main body. Have the figure centred in the page and have the title centred. Kilotonnes of CO 2 Equivalent 80,000 Energy Residential Industrial & Commercial Agriculture Transport Waste
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Figure 1: Trend in CO2 emissions from 1990 to 2006 for each sector (SEAI, 2007).
Tables:
Similar to figures above, but Table title comes above the table.
The introductory text regarding a figure or table should come before

Leave a Reply