Cardwell, Diane. "Solar and Wind Energy Start to Win on Price vs. Conventional Fuels." The New York Times. The New York Times, 23 Nov. 2014. Web. 25 Nov. 2014. <http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/business/energy-environment/solar-and-wind-energy-start-to-win-on-price-vs-conventional-fuels.html?rref=science&module=ArrowsNav&contentCollection=N.Y. / Region&action=swipe®ion=FixedLeft&pgtype=article>.
Solar and Wind Energy Start to Win on Price vs. Conventional Fuel
Article by Diane Cardwell
Summary:
Imagine a world where there was no coal or natural gas powering the engines and and different technology we use today, but instead everything was powered by solar and wind power. Well, this world may be closer than you think, and it just got a whole lot closer. In the last five years, prices of solar power plants has dropped so much that it is cheaper than natural gas, or coal in some places around the US, mainly in the Great Plains and the Southwest where there is an increased amount of sunlight and wind. And although this drop in price can be slightly attributed to loans the government has been giving this industry, studies have shown that even without this extra money, alternate energy sources are expected to be able to compete with natural fuels. New sources of energy have downsides, as well, such as the fact that energy can only be produced at certain times(when the sun is shining, or the wind is blowing), and this requires a constant demand for the availability of power, just in case the amount of power being produced suddenly drops in large amounts. This results in a lot of extra spending, outside of producing the actual power. However, the fuels and gases we have been using have even worse effects. For example, they pollute the atmosphere, and are slowly destroying the ozone, which can later result in restrictions on production, and extra costs. The two things that had been holding solar power from being the dominant source of energy has been the fact that it isn’t dispatchable, which means that the plants can’t be turned on or off to cope with demand, and that it has costed too much. But now, it is cheaper, and it has much less of a negative effect on our planet, and extra costs to produce it than gas, or fuel sources, so it is on the brink of taking over for energy.
Relevance:
If the US, or even the world, were to choose solar or wind powered energy sources over fuel, or traditional sources, it would have a largely positive effect on everyone. First of all, if cars used electric power instead of fuel, the carbon emissions will take a huge step down. This would slow the process of the atmosphere and the ozone layer being destroyed, and that could help global warming improve, and the planet to last longer as a whole. Also, since solar and wind power has now been announced cheaper in some places in the US, which means that it is fully possible that it can become cheaper in the whole world as well, and who’s to say it won’t continue to decrease in price? This will save people a ton of money, because it seems like all people ever complain about is their gas prices, and if they switched over to electric power, they wouldn't even have gas prices, they would just have to charge their cars in the garage overnight.
Critique:
This was a great article, that was written amazingly. It had background information on the subject, it included great transitions words to keep the article flowing, and there were no grammatical errors that I could find, which made the article more professional, and all the more enjoying to read. Since it was such a great article, it was difficult to find anything wrong with it, but there still were a couple of things that could have been fixed. First of all, the author only mentioned what the prices of the solar and wind energy, and natural are now, but she failed to acknowledge how the prices used to compare when natural gas was cheaper. If she had included this, it could have been easier to understand how much the prices really changed. Also, there were a lot of quotes included in this article. Usually, this would be a good thing that would offer another opinion in the article, but this article had way too many. By the end, it started causing the author’s thoughts to become less and less important, and the thoughts of other to be dominant. Despite these two things, this was a great article, and I really enjoyed reading it. I was pleased to learn that in the near future, more and more people could be switching over to electric, which would help the environment in drastic ways.
Sam Abukhadra 11/25/14
ReplyDeleteCurrent Event Comment Chemistry
Cardwell, Diane. "Solar and Wind Energy Start to Win on Price vs. Conventional Fuels." The New York Times. The New York Times, 23 Nov. 2014. Web. 25 Nov. 2014. .
I read Leo Gretzinger’s review of, “Solar and Wind Energy Start to Win on Price vs. Conventional Fuel” by Diane Cardwell. I though this was a good, in depth review, although there were some areas that need refinement. There were many aspects of Leo’s review that I thought were very well presented. The first aspect of his review that I thought was particularly well represented, was how Leo used very specific examples throughout his entire review. Specifically when he was talking about the U.S. choosing solar or wind power as there primary source of energy. I chose to highlight this aspect of his review because it really adds great depth. He talked specifically about how cars would run differently, and that impact, as well as the impact on the Ozone layer. This addition of specific details really allows us to put change in perspective. The second aspect of leo’s review that I thought was particularly well presented was when he gave the exact reasons for why the article he read was so excellent in his critique. I chose to highlight this because this added immense quality to the review. This specific analysis of what made the article so good made it evident that he fully understood and had analyzed the article he is reviewing. The third aspect of Leo’s review that I thought was well presented was, how Leo was so brutally honest and found the slight discrepancies within the article and explained why this was destructive to the article. For instance, when Leo was talking about how the author failed to mention the past prices of the various types of fuel she discussed throughout the article. I highlighted this because it shows just how in depth Leo went in his analysis of this article and truly understood it. I think by Leo showing the mistake the author made in that scenario really helps the reader the importance of the missing information.
Although Leo’s review was excellent, there were a few areas for improvement. One that stuck out to me was when he used questions in his article, in the relevance portion. I chose to highlight this because I didn’t feel that these questions were necessary. I felt that it only makes the article harder to follow and disrupts the flow. If these questions were simple replaced by statements, the article would have been dramatically improved. The second area in which there is room for improvement is when Leo is talking about the impact of the possible switch to solar or wind power. He fails to include any negatives of switching. He only talks about the positive aspects. This really hurts the article. It shows he hash’t fully accepted the other side of the argument and hasn’t contemplated the change to solar or wind energy completely. If he was to acknowledge the other side of the argument and state a few negatives of the switch, this article would be a lot more complete.
Leo’s article really changed the way I view energy. It completely opened my mind to other possible sources of fuel. What really astonished me, was all the positive aspects of the U.S. switching to wind or solar energy. Before reading this article I hadn’t contemplated the positive outcomes of switching energy sources. Now I understand what would happen as a result of the switch and I am truly astounded by the positive results that would occur as a result.
Cardwell, Diane. "Solar and Wind Energy Start to Win on Price vs. Conventional Fuels." The New York Times. The New York Times, 23 Nov. 2014. Web. 25 Nov. 2014. .
ReplyDeleteAfter reading Leo’s current events on “Solar and Wind Energy Start to Win on Price vs. Conventional Fuels,” I thought that he did a great job. What I really like about his summary of the article is how he started with imagine. The word “imagine” seems to captivate the reader by forming an image. I was automatically drawn into his review’s summary. A second aspect of his review that I really liked was how he gave an example on why the fuels that we are using are making bad effects. This really helped me understand the problems better. It really allowed me to understand the problem of the use of fuels. And a last thing that I like about his review is when he was critiquing the article. During his critique of the article, he talked about the pros and cons of the article and not only one or the other. This is good because it shows that he really read the article and understood it as well as the author’s point of view.
Even though his critique was very good, there are things that he could improve on. There were some punctuation errors that he should watch out for. There weren’t many but this is a warning for the future. Punctuation errors can sometimes make sentences a little confusing and hard to understand but he is lucky that this was only for a few sentences. Another aspect that he could improve on is not making his transitions into topics or sentences seem “choppy”. At one part, he wanted to put an example of something and when he stated the example it didn’t seem to flow very nicely. He went straight from the the statement to the “For example” part. He could have stated it as, “One example of this is”... At the same time this is his choice not mine.
Something that I was very surprised about how solar energy is so much less expensive than fuel. Originally, I thought that the prices between the two wouldn’t be very different since solar panels are part of very advanced technology. I was very surprised! Knowing that if we change our energy system for cars and other things, it can make a huge difference not only in our environment but people will also be saving money! Overall I think that Leo did a very good job with his Current Events Article Critique.