The pie charts show the electricity generated in Germany and France from all sources and renewables in the year 2009. Summarize the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant.
The given pie charts compare the percentage of production of electricity in France and Germany from three different sources such as conventional thermal, renewables and nuclear in 2009. Energy generated from renewable source is further classified into five sub categories such as biomass, hydroelectric, wind, solar and geothermal.
Overall, it can be seen that, while Germany produced more electricity from conventional thermal method, nuclear energy was the main power source in France in 2009. To add on, total generation of electricity in Germany was 560 k wh, while France produced 50 billion k wh less electricity in the same year.
To begin with in Germany three fifth of the total production of energy was from conventional thermal method in 2009 at 59.6% and nuclear and renewable sources produced 23% and 17.4% of electricity respectively. In further classification of renewable sources, biomass generated 39.3% of electricity, closely followed by wind at 36.9%. Surprisingly, there was no power generated from geothermal sources.
In contrast, France depended more on nuclear sources for electric power at 76% which was almost three quarter of the total production of electricity. More over, hydro electric power was the most efficient source of renewable energy in France at 80.5%, while energy produced from solar was merely 10.5%. Interestingly, like in Germany, France also did not depend on geothermal resources.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022-07-25 | wokoma elisha | 67 | view |
| 2021-07-02 | rahulchd | 90 | view |
| 2021-04-18 | dhillonsukh | 73 | view |
| 2020-12-11 | smyth | 56 | view |
| 2020-09-25 | Turonxoja | 84 | view |
- The pie charts show the electricity generated in Germany and France from all sources and renewables in the year 2009 Summarize the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 73
- The diagram below illustrates how glass is recycled Summarie the information by selecting and reporting the main features and mak Connlparills whiere relevant
- The pie chart shows the amount of money that a children s charity located in the USA spent and received in one year Summarize the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 78
- The chart shows British Emigration to selected destinations between 2004 and 2007 Summarize the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 84
- Life cycle and anatomy of a lady bird 73
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, if, so, while, in contrast, such as, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 7.0 129% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 1.00243902439 100% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 6.8 88% => OK
Relative clauses : 2.0 3.15609756098 63% => OK
Pronoun: 2.0 5.60731707317 36% => OK
Preposition: 43.0 33.7804878049 127% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 3.97073170732 126% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1217.0 965.302439024 126% => OK
No of words: 221.0 196.424390244 113% => OK
Chars per words: 5.50678733032 4.92477711251 112% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.85565412703 3.73543355544 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.00583981475 2.65546596893 113% => OK
Unique words: 118.0 106.607317073 111% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.533936651584 0.547539520022 98% => OK
syllable_count: 371.7 283.868780488 131% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.45097560976 117% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 1.53170731707 65% => OK
Article: 1.0 4.33902439024 23% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.07073170732 280% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 0.482926829268 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 3.36585365854 149% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 10.0 8.94146341463 112% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.4926829268 98% => OK
Sentence length SD: 40.7190373167 43.030603864 95% => OK
Chars per sentence: 121.7 112.824112599 108% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.1 22.9334400587 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.6 5.23603664747 107% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 1.69756097561 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 3.70975609756 135% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 0.0 1.13902439024 0% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.09268292683 122% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.270326988415 0.215688989381 125% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.125256067124 0.103423049105 121% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0665639896548 0.0843802449381 79% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.192785696685 0.15604864568 124% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0535631036672 0.0819641961636 65% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.6 13.2329268293 118% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.69 61.2550243902 66% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 6.51609756098 172% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 10.3012195122 127% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.68 11.4140731707 129% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.01 8.06136585366 99% => OK
difficult_words: 46.0 40.7170731707 113% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.5 11.4329268293 136% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.9970731707 98% => OK
text_standard: 16.0 11.0658536585 145% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 73.0337078652 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 6.5 Out of 9
---------------------
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.