‘Smart grid’ gets big
stimulus from US recovery plan.
This article talks about the money it is going to
take to build the new grid which will be a expansion of wind, solar, and
geothermal energy to make it a “smart” grid. It will help consumers to lower their
bills instead of plants and transmission lines making the cost high and
stressing out the consumers. It will respond and detect problems that occur and
is more secure and capable of withstanding cyber attacks and physical attacks. It
also says about government officials, business and labor leaders, and
environmentalists attended the session to talk about the smart grid and the
features it will provide.
The CRAAP evaluation shows that for currency the information was published
April 2009, the information has not been revised and the topic will require current
information seeing how this was writing back in 2009 and it is now 2013, also
the links are functional. For relevance,
the information does relate to my topic and the intended audience is for
people interested in the smart grid and about how it will help with cost, the
information is at an appropriate level and I have looked at a variety of sources
(2 sources) before determining this is the one I was going to use and also I would
be comfortable citing this source in my research paper because it does have
information that I am looking for that is similar to my U.S. Energy Grid source.
For authority, the author is Kramer,
David and the author is qualified to write on the topic, there is no contact
information and the URL reveals an .edu. For accuracy, the information comes from Physics Today and the
information is supported by evidence, the information has not been reviewed or
refereed and I can verify any of the information from personal knowledge and
the language or tone seems unbiased and there is not spelling, grammar or
typographical errors. For purpose, the
purpose of the information is to inform and yes, the author make his intention
clear and the information is opinion and some fact, also there are political
biases.
The passage that was interested to me was about the
standards are needed section. This passage surprised me with how a member of
the committee. On energy and natural resources said about lack of standards as
the biggest impediment to modernization because I thought the new smart grid
was suppose to have high standards with all the energy saving it will do. Further
questions this information raise that might be worth investigating is from what
Evan Gaddis said about the slow progress on standards, if the standards are
slow progressing, then what will that mean for cost and making it eco friendly.
This question is important to me because in this economy not a lot of people
have enough money to pay for high standard smart grid since they are taking
their time with progress.
Why we need a smarter grid
This article is about how Spain renewable energy in
which more than half of Spain was powered by wind and how there was a problem
with how it was not connected to the rest of Europe. Which caused for
technicians to shut off windmills to avoid overloading the electricity grid and
how electricity-wind can be unpredictable and send excess electricity into a calibrated
power grid? With the energy supplies far away, it’s hard to power the entire
nation and without money in new high voltage power lines then the windmills
will be useless. The electrical grids are really old and with rickety networks
that cover a few states, which further complicates national borders.
The CRAAP evaluation shows that for currency the information was published
8 November, 2009 and the information has not been revised or updated, the topic
requires current information since it was from 2009 and the links are
functional. For relevance, the
information relates to my topic and the intended audience is people who are
interested with power grids and renewable energy, the information is at an
appropriate level and I have looked at a variety of sources before determining
this one I was going to use and I would not be comfortable citing this source in
my research paper because it does not have a author. For authority, the source is National Geographic and the source is
qualified to write on the topic and there is not contact information, the URL
reveals it is an .edu. For accuracy, the
information comes from New Scientist and the information is supported by
evidence and the information has not been reviewed, I can verify any of the
information from personal knowledge and the language or tone is free of emotion
and there is no spelling, grammar or typographical errors. For purpose, the purpose of the information
is to inform and the sponsor make their purpose clear and the information is
fact and some opinion, there are ideological and cultural biases.
This passage interests me because it talks about a
new way for renewable energy which is wind energy. The passage surprised me with
the wind energy idea because it would be better to use instead of power lines
and big transformers. As long as the wind keeps coming but they would need to
make a lot of windmills in order to power a whole nation with wind. The passage
taught me that I did not already know was about thinking about windmills and
using them to our advantage on windy days to make less stress. On the
transformers and electric power lines and this information is helpful in
answering my research questions by taking a second look at how more eco
friendly we can make the smart grid with wind power.
Your responses to your sources (what surprised you, what you learned, etc) are excellent as you show careful thought and attention to the ideas presented.
ReplyDeleteAs I read your credibility analyses, however, I found a string of observations without concrete evidence to back them up. When you write an observation follow it up with the evidence, examples, or illustrations that helped you draw that conclusion. For example, if I observe that the author make's her purpose clear, what can I point to in the text to support my observation?
And as a side note, you could safely use the National Geographic article as a credible source in your report because even though they list no author, the magazine itself is a widely read and recognizably credible source.