The drawbacks of traditional energy sources mean that they are not a long-term solution to the problem of meeting ever-increasing energy needs.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.
The global economic and political paradigm is built on traditional energy sources such as oil, coal, peat and natural gas. Entire financial ecosystems revolve around the exploration, discovery and scarcity of these aforementioned energy sources. Despite their paramountcy as our primary source of energy, the drawbacks prevent them from meeting the planet’s ever-increasing energy needs. This position will be advanced through discussion of the primary drawbacks of traditional energy sources, namely their finite availability and the environmental damage their use involves.
Traditional energy sources are a finite commodity. They are distributed unevenly throughout the globe, and the importance they hold for macroeconomic stability means that their discovery and subsequent possession precipitates aggressive economic, political and often military posturing to secure their use. More broadly, their limited nature has hostaged global economic growth and stability; our continued financial wellbeing is predicated on the ease of access to these resources. Modern sources of energy, such as solar, wind, hydroelectric power are not nearly as scarce. Further, the barriers in terms of political, financial and technical ability to harness these new sources of energy are noticeably less than fossil fuel extraction. Thus, the broader global movement towards energy which is much more abundant will comfortably meet ever-increasing energy needs. Despite this perceived abundance of new sources of energy, it must be noted that this does not fully alleviate the problems posed by scarcity. While solar, wind and hydroelectric power is much more accessible, only a relatively small number of nations possess the climate with which it becomes beneficial to invest heavily in new resources. What’s more, uranium, the fuel behind nuclear power, is noticeably scarce. When combined with the large numbers of nuclear reactors that exist globally, the problem of scarcity still remains to a limited degree.
The extraction of traditional sources of energy also severely damages the global climate and environment. The expanded use of traditional energy sources which will be required by our ever increasing energy needs lest we move towards renewable energy sources will do catastrophic damage to the environment, and by extension, our standard of living. Paradoxically, the resources which have driven socio-economic development in the western world are also those whose use can most damage this growth. Herein lies the advantage of new sources of energy to meet our growing needs; they do logarithmically less damage to the environment. However, this must be contextualised somewhat. The problems of dealing with spent nuclear fuel and waste are essentially insurmountable, with the only option being to bury and isolate them essentially forever, given their several thousand year long half-life. Despite this, the urgency with which we must act to prevent irreparable damage to the global climate and environment mean that traditional sources of energy are not a long term solution to meeting our ever increasing energy needs.
Traditional energy sources are axiomatic to the global political economy, and our daily lives. Currently, we simply cannot function without them. Their importance, however, should not be taken as evidence in favour of their continued use. Due to their nature as a scarce resource, and the damage traditional energy sources do to the environment, they are not a viable solution to meeting the planet’s increasing energy needs.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, so, still, thus, well, while, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.5258426966 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.4196629213 81% => OK
Conjunction : 17.0 14.8657303371 114% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 11.3162921348 97% => OK
Pronoun: 43.0 33.0505617978 130% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 61.0 58.6224719101 104% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 12.9106741573 139% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3042.0 2235.4752809 136% => OK
No of words: 534.0 442.535393258 121% => OK
Chars per words: 5.69662921348 5.05705443957 113% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.80712388197 4.55969084622 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.9987489618 2.79657885939 107% => OK
Unique words: 262.0 215.323595506 122% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.49063670412 0.4932671777 99% => OK
syllable_count: 977.4 704.065955056 139% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.59117977528 113% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 11.0 6.24550561798 176% => OK
Article: 11.0 4.99550561798 220% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.77640449438 225% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 20.2370786517 124% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 23.0359550562 91% => OK
Sentence length SD: 58.0283516912 60.3974514979 96% => OK
Chars per sentence: 121.68 118.986275619 102% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.36 23.4991977007 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.44 5.21951772744 47% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 7.80617977528 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 10.2758426966 117% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 5.13820224719 195% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.83258426966 62% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.336205435105 0.243740707755 138% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.102734373825 0.0831039109588 124% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0961720273001 0.0758088955206 127% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.227891658782 0.150359130593 152% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0503486425555 0.0667264976115 75% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.1 14.1392134831 114% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 33.24 48.8420337079 68% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 12.1743820225 113% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.78 12.1639044944 130% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.11 8.38706741573 109% => OK
difficult_words: 150.0 100.480337079 149% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 11.8971910112 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.2143820225 93% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5/6 paragraphs with 3/4 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: reason 4. address both of the views presented for reason 4 (optional)
para 6: conclusion.
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.