Challenges Await
Plan to Reduce Emissions
This
article says that the Obama Administration’s plan to limit carbon emissions on
new power plants will face several political and legal obstacles. People are
arguing that the technology needed to make this plan work, “has not been close
to being proven as the law requires.” “The proposal would limit gas-fired power
plants to 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions per megawatt-hour and new
coal plants to 1,100 pounds of carbon dioxide.” This would drop the average
amount of carbon dioxide that is emitted from coal plants by 700 pounds. At the
time the rule is in effect, power plants would need to collect their carbon
dioxide from smokestacks. There are three current systems that are capturing
carbon. The most popular method is to convert coal to a mixture of hydrogen,
and carbon monoxide, which together is not a pollutant. One power plant that is
close to opening is Southern Company’s Kemper County plant that will convert
coal to gases and strain the carbon dioxide. This plant will reduce emissions
by 65%. However, the plant cost is 5 billion dollars, which is 1 billion
dollars over the budget.
This
plan will positively affect our lives because simply reducing carbon dioxide
emissions is naturally good for the environment. The carbon dioxide that is
collected from the power plants can also be sold in certain places and that can
help create jobs in certain areas, helping decrease the unemployment rate and
helping the economy. The carbon will be sold to for use in oil fields because
the carbon helps more oil come up to the surface. Because the price of oil has
risen, the value of carbon dioxide to oil drillers has also risen. However, the
value of the carbon-reduction system is not clear, because the carbon is sold
to oil drillers and the oil will eventually be burned into emissions. We will
be basically be going into a huge circle then.
I
believe that this article was written very well, however I do think that it
could have been made less wordy so it could be more appealing to younger
audiences. The article included several interesting facts and cause and effect
scenarios that may possibly happen.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Jack Flanagan did a great job reviewing the article “Challenge Await Plan to Reduce Emissions”. One aspect of the review that I immediately thought to have been done well was how descriptive Jack was with the information that was given in the article. For example, Jack included exact measurements of emissions being created and also for the cost of having the plan executed. Another great aspect of Jack’s review was how he connected the information within the article, to how it will benefit us. He includes how carbon dioxide can be sold to be use in oil fields, thus creating more jobs for Americans. Jack continues to say that less carbon dioxide emissions shall naturally help the environment. One last aspect of Jack’s review that stuck out was how the review flows with constant information. This allowed me to not be bored while reading ti, and instead made me want to learn more about the pressing issue.
Even though Jack did write a great review there was still a few things that could be improved upon. For example I believe that Jack’s critique of the Article was quite short and could have contained more of what he thought about the article, by going more in depth. Another way that the review could have been improved upon was by including more information about why carbon dioxide is harmful to the environment. I was disappointed by how he only said that reducing carbon dioxide emissions would help the environment, without providing an explanation.
Before reading Jack’s review, I had no idea that building a plant that reduces carbon dioxide emissions would cost 5 billion dollars. I was surprised at first by the price of one of these plants, but when I found out that the plant went 1 billion dollars over the original budget I truly began to understand that it cost a lot of money told a emission reducing power plant.
I thought Jack Flanagan did a good job of reviewing this current event article. He did a very good job of summarizing the article. He gave us enough detail to inform us of what it was about without making it long and boring. I also liked how he focused on the statistics and science, but gave some detail of the political side of this situation, for example he informed us that Obama will have trouble getting this law passed because there isn’t enough proof, which is required to create a law. Finally, I thought he did a good job of explaining that we not only could reduce the levels of carbon dioxide, but could also capture it to put it to good use at oil plants. He explained very clearly that carbon dioxide increases the amount of oil taken from each well.
ReplyDeleteOne thing that I felt Jack could have done better on was critiquing the article. I think that he could have gone into more detail about what he didn’t like. I think that he should have explained things about the content of the article, not who it was targeted for.
One thing that I learned from this article was how expensive these power plants are. The new one, according to the article, is $5 billion.
I think Jack Flanagan did a great job at reviewing this article. He summarized the article in a concise articulate manner without making his summary excessively monotonous. Jack also put an emphasis on the science and giving us some statistics. Despite describing the science involved he also described the politics involved in the Obama administration's new environmental plan. I was impressed at Jack's decision to include his opinion about the environmental plan that will soon be put into action.
ReplyDeleteJack wrote this review well but I feel that he could have included some information about some of the downsides to the plan, his review seemed a bit one-sided. Other than this I think Jack did a great job.
As a result of reading this article I now know that there are three different ways of capturing the energy contained in coal.
I like the article that Jack chose to review because i feel its a topic that people have strong options about and its good to hear what people think of this situation. I also really like the summary Jack gave of this article it was very descriptive and gave a lot of good informative information. I also like the paragraph that he wrote explaining how it positively impacts our lives.
ReplyDeleteI think jack could have made a better introduction for his review and told us the general topic before going right into the summary. And i also think he could have included the name of the article with the author so anyone who wanted to read the article or learn about this topic could find the article easier.
If i hadn't have read this review i wouldn't have known about this situation so i am glad i picked this review to read.