Question

(1) I am an eighth-grade representative on the student council. At the beginning of this month, the council debated an intriguing proposal: a solar energy program for the school. The next week, the school newspaper reported that during the meeting I had spoken out against solar energy. Nothing could be further from the truth.

(2) I think the solar power proposal is ingenious. The school would add solar panels to its roof in partnership with a nonprofit foundation. The foundation would help pay for the installation, answering possible objections based on cost.

(3) The panels would reduce the school’s electric bills—and its carbon footprint. Some of the electricity we use in this city comes from generators that burn coal or petroleum fuel. The sponsors of the proposal projected that the panels could reduce the school’s use of fossil-fuel generated electricity by up to 30%. The nonprofit foundation would even contribute to the school’s STEM programs. We wouldn’t just be adding solar panels; we would be adding to students’ knowledge.

(4) With all these benefits—lower costs, environmental responsibility, and educational value— why would anyone speak out against this proposal?

(5) Well, no one did, exactly. Instead, I raised my hand in the meeting to point out a few streaks of gray in this otherwise rosy picture.

(6) First, solar panels themselves can add to pollution. Turning quartz, which contains naturally occurring silicon, into the metallurgical-grade silicon used in solar panels means refining the quartz at high temperatures. Reaching those high temperatures means—you guessed it— burning fossil fuels. In addition, the manufacture of current solar panels involves highly toxic materials that must be carefully recycled.

(7) There is a possible answer, though, to these problems: a new material called perovskite. By using perovskite in place of silicon, manufacturers can avoid some of the environmental costs and risks of silicon-based solar cells.

(8) The technology is still developing, and for now, silicon-based solar panels are the only realistic option. However, we should do a little research before committing to silicon. If long-lasting perovskite panels are predicted to be available soon, we might wait. If we do go with silicon-based panels now, then we should make a firm plan to replace them with a “greener” solution when they wear out. Once these concerns are addressed, the proposed solar panel program is a guaranteed winner. As I hope I have made clear, I support the program—with a few vital tweaks.

Sincerely,

Kira Wilson

Multiple Select Question
What is the author’s point of view on solar energy? Choose all that apply.
A.
Solar energy has environmental benefits.
B.
Solar panels are too expensive to be practical.
C.
The pros and cons of installing solar panels are confusing.
D.
Manufacturing solar panels will destroy the environment.
E.
Use of new materials may have long-term benefits for solar energy.
F.
Even a small-scale use of solar energy aids the effort to help the environment.

Answer 1

A, E, F

- A: The author says panels would reduce the school’s electric bills and carbon footprint (cuts fossil-fuel electricity by up to 30%).
- E: The author cites perovskite as a new material that could avoid some environmental costs and risks of silicon.
- F: The author notes that even installing panels at the school would reduce fossil-fuel electricity use and help the environment.