This article on npr gives a general overview of the renewable energy sector under Trump. The article argues that the renewable energy sector will be fine under the Trump administration. Renewable energy has gained so much momentum over the past decade that will allow the industry to succeed in the future. The article emphasizes that costs of wind and solar have gone down a lot over the past decade and will continue to fall because they are technologies. It also discusses some hurtles that could slow down the growth of renewables. These include canceling the industry’s tax cut and removing the clean power plan. The article then sums up that the federal level isn’t the only influence on this industry; the state level has a lot of power in shaping the future of the energy sector.
I thought this article gave a good summary of the concerns in renewable energy. It really didn’t go into depth on any issue. I think that it could have included more quotes from sources. Some more quotes from political leaders could have helped to show the government’s view of the story.
I thought the lede, nut graph, and kicker were all short but they were effective. The lede did a good job of describing the situation of an uncertain future of the industry with Trump’s quote on solar being too expensive. The nut graph then describes the reasons for optimism with cost being 70 percent cheaper today (maybe more statistics could have been used). The kicker then does a good job of linking the articles perspective on the US to optimism in the renewable energy industry in the rest of the world with a specific reference to Dubai.
Do you think listening to the article’s audio recording or reading the text is more effective? Do you think more statistics could have been used in the nut graph? Should more quotes from sources be used, and what other sources would help the article? The article describes reasons for optimism, then discusses some reasons for concern, and clears up those concerns; is this a good way to format the argument?