Schwartz, John. "Can Carbon Capture Technology Prosper under Trump." Nytimes. Ny times, 2 Jan. 2017. Web. 10 Jan. 2017. <https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/02/science/donald-trump-carbon-capture-clean-coal.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fearth&action=click&contentCollection=earth®ion=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=2&pgtype=sectionfront>.
John Schwartz’s article about Carbon Capture technology prospering under Trump was very interesting to read. He first begins by discussing what carbon capture technology is. He describes carbon capture technology as the technology that can remove CO2 from the air and use it to power other types of things. The article is mainly focused on the Petra Nova plant in Houston, Texas where this plant is doing exactly that. This plant is one of the most modern of its kind. It is funded by two oil companies and the federal government. This process of carbon dioxide recovery works by using various chemicals to extract the CO2 from the air. Firstly, the air is sucked into the plant using giant turbines. Then amines are added to the CO2 and the gas is snaked through the plant via a series of plants where the CO2 along with the amines are removed from the air and sent into a pipeline which the oil companies plan to use to make new oil via a process called Enhanced Oil Recovery. This process is expected to increase oil production by nearly 14000 barrels per day.
This technology will directly impact us in our lives. Trump is one who believes that climate change is a hoax and he plans to revoke many policies that were put to help to environment. Trump’s plan will increase the CO2 production by a lot and we have to do anything we can to help prevent that and this technology is a very good way to do so.
Overall, this article was well written and provided very good details on what this new technology was and what it can do. Although, one thing that I did not like was the idea that Mr. Schwartz only included the worse case scenario outcomes and not what the best case could be; this gave the article a very pessimistic tone. But, by reading this article I learned a lot about a topic that I had had no knowledge on before.
Schwartz, John. "Can Carbon Capture Technology Prosper under Trump." Nytimes. Ny times, 2 Jan. 2017. Web. 10 Jan. 2017. .
ReplyDeleteAlex's review of the article "Can Carbon Capture Technology Prosper under Trump" was informative and to the point. I liked his in-depth explanation of the technology and how he included a step by step process of how CO2 is turned into oil. I also appreciated his connection of this topic to the current political situation in our country and explained how CO2 recapturing may help to alleviate some of the environmental damage Trump is bound to cause. Finally, his criticism of the article seemed valid and was well explained.
Although Alex wrote a great review, there are a few things he could improve on. I would have liked to read a quote from the article to get a sense of the reader's tone and some more information. I also would have liked Alex to explain how carbon recapturing can impact the environment, both positively and negatively.
Overall I learned a lot from Alex's review-- I didn't even know that CO2 recapturing was possible until reading about it here. I am very interested in environmental topics and was happy to learn more. I hope to hear more about this technology in the future.
Schwartz, John. "Can Carbon Capture Technology Prosper under Trump." Nytimes. Ny times, 2 Jan. 2017. Web. 10 Jan. 2017. .
ReplyDeleteAlex’s review of the article "Can Carbon Capture Technology Prosper under Trump." was very well written. His explanation of the carbon dioxide recovery process was thorough and precise. Second, his overview of the impact of the technology was quite informative. Third, he established the article and technology as very relevant in today’s society.
Though the review was generally well written, there were a few aspects that could have been improved. First, Alex could have incorporated a quote or some outside statistic so as to add greater perspective about the article. Second, Alex could have gone into further depth in his summary of the article as a whole.
This review was quite informative on the subject of CO2 recapture. Scientific technology is indeed quite fascinating and grows even more advanced with every passing year. This certain technology could one day be integral in improving the condition of the environment.
Can Carbon Capture Technology Prosper under Trump
ReplyDeleteSchwartz, John. "Can Carbon Capture Technology Prosper under Trump." Nytimes. Ny times, 2 Jan. 2017. Web. 10 Jan. 2017. .
I think that Alex did a great job on his review. I liked his use of language. It allowed his summary to be very easy to understand. The second part that I liked was explanation on carbon dioxide. I think that this helped the reader understand much more on the affects of CO2. And lastly, I think that it was very clear that he understood the possible affect on today's society that the article establishes. Although I think that He did a great job, I believe that there are a few areas in which he could have improved. I think that some of his grammar makes the article a bit confusing but that was only in a few areas. And second, I believe that he could have used a quote from the article in his summary. It would have improved it.
I had already known about this topic but Alex's review really informed my knowledge on it.
I commented on Alex Swenson’s review of the article “Can Carbon Capture Technology Prosper under Trump.” Overall I thought the article and his review were very well-written. I liked how Alex included personal references says that he was interested in the article and why. This made me more inclined to read the article. Also, I liked how he opened with explaining what Carbon Capture Technology is exactly. Carbon Capture Technology is the technology that can removed CO2 from the air and uses it to power other things. Finally, I liked how Alex explained how this process occurs. He writes that this process uses chemical to extract the CO2 from the air.
ReplyDeleteEven though Alex’s review was well-written overall, there were areas he could have improved. For example when explaining the process of Carbon Capture Technology his explanation was slightly confusing when talking about animes. I wish he had simplified this explanation to make it more understandable. I also wish that Alex had explained more how Trump’s policies would cause less CO2 and why this would be bad for society. He says this without a large explanation which would have made it more meaningful.
Overall both the article and the review were very interesting. Before reading the article, I did not know that there were ways to get CO2 out of the air. It was interesting to read about something I had never hurt of before. It would be interesting to read more about how this could contribute to climate change and whether or not this technology could decrease global warming. I believe more research on this technology and how it could help the environment.
Schwartz, John. "Can Carbon Capture Technology Prosper under Trump." Nytimes. Ny times, 2 Jan. 2017. Web. 10 Jan. 2017. .
ReplyDeleteI read Alex Swenson’s review of the New York Times article, “Can Carbon Capture Technology Prosper under Trump ” and thought that he did a very good job. I particularly liked his summary of the article and its main points. He kept his summary short and concise, which summaries are supposed to be, yet still included enough information for the reader to understand what happened in the article. In addition, I thought that he did a very good job explaining CO2 is turned into oil, using a step by step process. Finally, I thought that he did a very good job connecting the topic to the reader’s life, when writing that “Trump’s plan will increase the CO2 production by a lot and we have to do anything we can to help prevent that and this technology is a very good way to do so.” This is very relevant to our lives, as Trump is about to be inaugurated.
Although Alex did a very good job in his review, he could use some improvement. For example, he could have used quotes in his review, as it always emphasizes the validity of everything being said. Lastly, he could have included an explanation on how Trump’s policies would cause less CO2 and why this would ultimately be bad for society.
I thought that the review was written very well and Alex chose a great article to talk about. I think that the topic is very interesting and different and Alex has further educated me on the topic. I never knew about this topic before reading Alex’s review and now feel knowledgeable on this topic. Overall, I really enjoyed Alex’s review and learned a lot from it.
Alexander Plaza
ReplyDeleteSchwartz, John. "Can Carbon Capture Technology Prosper under Trump." Nytimes. Ny times, 2 Jan. 2017. Web. 10 Jan. 2017. .
Alex, I read your review of "Can Carbon Capture Technology Prosper under Trump." by John Schwartz and I thought that you did a good job. I thought that you did a good job at summarizing the article. I was not confused about your subject. This is good for the readers since it creates a firm base for the rest of your review. Also, it is good that your summary is brief. It does not bore the reader with useless information and you are able to move to the main point of your review faster. Finally, I like that your connection is meaningful. You connect the policies of trump and the possibilities of capture technology directly to the reader’s future. Your connections gain interest from the reader.
Although your article was exceptional, there are some areas that you could improve. First, I think you should include more quotes from the experts in the study. It would be helpful to hear expert opinion on the carbon capture technology. It would be helpful for the reader to get a direct link to the research through a quote. You could include a quote about the scientists thoughts about the research. Also, I believe that you could improve some minor grammatical errors. This would stop the reader’s attention from being drawn away from the content of the review.
Overall I enjoyed your review and I was intrigued by the possibilities. I will be paying attention to how Trump handles environmental issues when he becomes inaugurated. His decisions may be very important towards the words policy on climate change.
I read Alex's review of the article, "Can Carbon Capture Technology Prosper under Trump." There were many aspects of his review that were well done. Firstly, his summary was very easy to follow and to the point; there wasn't any unnecessary information in it. The second thing is he did a good job explaining what carbon capture is and the steps of carbon dioxide recovery. The third thing Alex did very well was connecting the article to politics today and explaining what it could mean for the environment in the future.
ReplyDeleteAlthough Alex's review was good, there were a few things that he could have improved on. One aspect, is that he could have included quotes from the article. This would have enhanced the review even more. The second thing that he could have improved on is the grammatical errors. There were very few, but fixing them would make the review even better.
Overall, Alex's review of the article was very well done. It was interesting reading about carbon capturing because I had never heard of it before. It was also interesting to read how Trump's plan regarding this may impact the enviroment.
Schwartz, John. "Can Carbon Capture Technology Prosper under Trump." Nytimes. Ny times, 2 Jan. 2017. Web. 10 Jan. 2017. .
ReplyDeleteI read Alex’s review of the article “Can Carbon Capture Technology Prosper Under Trump” by John Schwartz. I think that Alex did a good job reviewing the article, he included a detailed description of the technology and explained the process of how CO2 turns into oil. I liked how the article is relevant in today's society. Lastly I enjoyed how Alex included why he was interested in the article.
Although his review was well written, there are a few things that he could of improved. His explanation of the process of carbon capture technology was a little confusing, so I think he could have explained it to make it a little easier to understand. I also think that Alex could have included some quotes in his review from the scientists perspectives on the research.
Overall I really enjoyed the article and I learned a lot from it. It was very interesting to read because I had never heard of it before. It’s also interesting to see how Trump’s plan may impact the environment. I will be paying closer attention to see what Trump does with the environmental issues.
Allison Barker
ReplyDeleteJanuary 30, 2017
Schwartz, John. "Can Carbon Capture Technology Prosper under Trump." Nytimes. Ny times, 2 Jan. 2017. Web. 10 Jan. 2017. .
I greatly enjoyed Alex’s review of John Schwartz’s article “Can Carbon Capture Technology Prosper under Trump. I thought that the review was well-written and informative. One thing that I liked about Alex’s review was his thorough, detailed description of the carbon capture process. An understanding of the process allowed me to better understand the implications of such technology and make my own informed decision about its use. Second, I like that Alex chose an article that tied this scientific technology to prominent real-world political issues. This helped me feel more emotionally invested in the article. Third, I appreciated that Alex acknowledged the possible bias in tone of the article. This allowed me to maintain some perspective and contributed to my ability to have an informed opinion on the subject.
Although Alex’s review was very informative, I would change a few things about it to make it even better. For instance, Alex could have talked more about Trump’s plan to revoke policies. Although I realized that these actions are harmful, I did not get a sense of exactly which policies will be revoked. I also would have appreciated statistics pertaining to the effectiveness of this new technology, as this would have given me a more thorough understanding of the topic.
Overall, I had no idea that this type of technology could exist, and I am very glad that Alex was able to summarize the information so succinctly.