This was a very interesting article. It began with a scene-setting lead that flows into the story. Quotes were incorporated in the article to make it more than just facts, which was good. Experts were quoted and facts were used appropriately, but not overwhelmingly. The author followed informative sentences with colorful ones that help explain the information. I liked that they included the process of turning the methane gas into electricity, but I might have moved it up in the article instead of putting it at the end.
This article only seemed to provide one side to the issue though. It made me wonder if there were any people opposed to this new way to get energy. Or, were there any people who didn't know this conversion of trash into energy was happening? I know I didn't, so I'm sure that there are others who didn't know either. It would've added to the article to get a quote from someone like this, just so it wouldn't be all the same experts.
I think this article was written in this fun way to show the people that there are other ways to get energy besides wind mills and solar power. To me it seemed like it was turning trash from a gross subject to one that could be used. I liked the style that was used.
I liked that this article ended on a quote. "We're turning them from the juvenile delinquents of the district into productive members of society." This quote let the story end on a colorful note and it summed up what was being done in simple terms.
The story can be found here:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2008-10-25-newjersey_N.htm
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
When discussing new forms of energy conversion, it's tempting to get sucked into the novelty of a nascent process. This is also the case with novel fuel-conversion processes. Reporters get so carried away that they forget to mention costs. My editors at Dow Jones always hounded me when I forgot to mention how pricy certain methods are in relation to current practices. People don't usually select one method over another because they want to destroy the environment. They do it because it's cost-effective. This piece never once mentions the price of converting trash into energy. Is this trend limited to New Jersey?
Post a Comment