Professor of Economics, Paul Krugman speaks of solar power in the United States and it’s rise above fossil power in his New York Times op-ed, “Here Comes the Sun.” Is solar power really better than fossil power? Even though solar energy has a variety of benefits such as being abundant, environmentally friendly and also is declining in cost, it still has a few issues. One case of these issues is implementing that solar energy into the US electrical grid. According to the article “Green energy and Green power”, solar energy requires a great amount of space and consequently is frequently found in remote areas; transporting this energy to highly populated areas, such as cities, would be “inefficient and in some cases impossible”.
Solar energy …show more content…
He attempts to persuade the readers that solar energy will soon be on the rise due to its declining cost. However, that is an inaccurate statement, as discussed previously, solar power panels require a good amount of space and therefore will be difficult to provide this energy to cities. According to “Green energy and green power” only twenty percent of the renewable energy that is available is used in the electrical grid and in order to use more of this energy, the US will have to make changes to the electrical grid itself, meaning more costs. The market for solar energy is not fair either. The United States forces a meter plan disrupting utility companies means of obtaining profit and this makes it difficult to maintain their running expenses. Could that be the real reason why Solyndra failed? Krugman's failure to recognize this information shows that his blinded by his non objective view towards the …show more content…
In reality, Solar Power is not cost efficient in the US. Solar panels are too expensive for the average consumer to obtain. Www.solarpowerauthority.com estimates the average cost to the consumer is around 25,000 to 35,000. The average United states citizen cannot afford to pay that expense, even if it is beneficial in the long term. So solar power is not cost-effective as Krugman put it.
Even though, I do not agree with Krugman that solar energy is cost efficient, I do agree with him on the basis that it is the superior power supply. Solar energy is safer for the environment and is more abundant than fossil energy. If we could lower the cost of solar power to fit the budget of the average consumer, than a rise in solar energy is definitely ensured. Krugman’s article is successful in persuading against fossil energy and towards solar energy, however it fails to provide accurate information on costs of the energy. Solar energy is environmentally friendly and abundant. But the price of solar energy is far too high for the average american. The metering plan also hinders the utility companies who provide the power and therefore slows down the progress of solar power. Krugman failing to recognize this shows that he is unobjective and is obviously biased towards fossil power. Overall Krugman’s article succeeds in convincing the audience to favor solar power,
Solar energy …show more content…
He attempts to persuade the readers that solar energy will soon be on the rise due to its declining cost. However, that is an inaccurate statement, as discussed previously, solar power panels require a good amount of space and therefore will be difficult to provide this energy to cities. According to “Green energy and green power” only twenty percent of the renewable energy that is available is used in the electrical grid and in order to use more of this energy, the US will have to make changes to the electrical grid itself, meaning more costs. The market for solar energy is not fair either. The United States forces a meter plan disrupting utility companies means of obtaining profit and this makes it difficult to maintain their running expenses. Could that be the real reason why Solyndra failed? Krugman's failure to recognize this information shows that his blinded by his non objective view towards the …show more content…
In reality, Solar Power is not cost efficient in the US. Solar panels are too expensive for the average consumer to obtain. Www.solarpowerauthority.com estimates the average cost to the consumer is around 25,000 to 35,000. The average United states citizen cannot afford to pay that expense, even if it is beneficial in the long term. So solar power is not cost-effective as Krugman put it.
Even though, I do not agree with Krugman that solar energy is cost efficient, I do agree with him on the basis that it is the superior power supply. Solar energy is safer for the environment and is more abundant than fossil energy. If we could lower the cost of solar power to fit the budget of the average consumer, than a rise in solar energy is definitely ensured. Krugman’s article is successful in persuading against fossil energy and towards solar energy, however it fails to provide accurate information on costs of the energy. Solar energy is environmentally friendly and abundant. But the price of solar energy is far too high for the average american. The metering plan also hinders the utility companies who provide the power and therefore slows down the progress of solar power. Krugman failing to recognize this shows that he is unobjective and is obviously biased towards fossil power. Overall Krugman’s article succeeds in convincing the audience to favor solar power,