Alternative energy is any way of creating power for humankind to use, other than the
burning of fossil fuels, which is harmful to the environment. Some examples include
solar panels, which derive usable energy from the Sun's rays, and wind turbines,
which collect gusts of wind and transform them into energy. Wave farms, which
harness the power of ocean waves to store energy, have three main advantages
when compared to other energy sources.
First of all, like wind and solar power, wave farms are better for the environment.
The burning of fossil fuels, which is still the most popular source of energy in the
world, is extremely dangerous. Using gas and oil releases carbon dioxide into the
atmosphere and depletes the ozone layer. This layer of Earth’s atmosphere is crucial
since it protects plants and humans from harmful radiation. Wave farms do not
release carbon dioxide and cause almost no long-term environmental damage.
The second major advantage of wave farms is their predictability. Wave farms retain
energy from the ocean's waves, which are always in motion. Solar power depends
heavily on unpredictable weather patterns. For example, cloud cover results in little
to no energy being stored in solar panels because the Sun’s rays hardly reach the
Earth’s surface. On the other hand, ocean waves are measurable and predictable
and lead to a steady and reliable output of energy.
Finally, wave farms do not obstruct the ecosystem in which they are placed, unlike
enormous wind turbines that have been known to kill birds. Wave farms employ
flotation devices, called buoys, to collect wave energy and transmit it through a
series of cables back to a storage unit. This style of capturing energy blends much
better with the natural surroundings when compared to the large turbines you find
on wind farms.
The article and the lecture are about the alternative sources of energy. More specifically, the writer illustrates the pros of using wavefarms as an alternative source of energy. The lecturer disagrees with the reasonings provided by the author in favor of wavefarms and attacks each of the arguments.
In reading, the author states wavefarm to be environment friendly source of energy as it has no carbon dioxide emission. The speaker completely rebuts this argument by pointing out that there is emisson of carbon dioxide in the process of installation of various machineries required for wavefarm. Additionally, he adds on that chemicals released to the ocean for setup of wavefarm is harmful for marine ecosystem.
The writer claims that the energy output from the wavefarm is predictable and reliable as it depends upon wave motion which is incessant. Again, the professor believes the assertion to be inaccurate. The speaker urges not to mistake predictablility with reliablity as the output from wavefarm depends upon functionality of generators and ocean environment which is not always good for energy output.
Finally, the author highlights wavefarm as a source of energy which is free from any sort of hinderance to the ecosystem. The lecturer, however, believes that there is flaw with his viewpoint. The professor points out that the writer has not elaborate about other systems used in wavefarm, other than buoys. Water columns and overtoppings system when used for wavefarm leads to noise disrupting birds and sea creatures. In addition, there is high possibilty of entrapment of sea creatures in the compartments of wavefarm system.
To conclude, the author and the lecturer have conflicting views regarding the wavefarm as the alternative source of energy.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 461, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...In addition, there is high possibilty of entrapment of sea creatures in the compa...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, however, if, regarding, so, in addition, sort of
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.4613686534 105% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 5.04856512141 0% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 12.0772626932 75% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 10.0 22.412803532 45% => OK
Preposition: 46.0 30.3222958057 152% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 5.01324503311 160% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1506.0 1373.03311258 110% => OK
No of words: 280.0 270.72406181 103% => OK
Chars per words: 5.37857142857 5.08290768461 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.09062348924 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.96592037544 2.5805825403 115% => OK
Unique words: 144.0 145.348785872 99% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.514285714286 0.540411800872 95% => OK
syllable_count: 480.6 419.366225166 115% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 3.25607064018 31% => OK
Article: 12.0 8.23620309051 146% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 34.9427468233 49.2860985944 71% => OK
Chars per sentence: 100.4 110.228320801 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.6666666667 21.698381199 86% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.13333333333 7.06452816374 59% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.27373068433 140% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.169869644312 0.272083759551 62% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0593844140101 0.0996497079465 60% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0586688899963 0.0662205650399 89% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0897223553013 0.162205337803 55% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0549112298636 0.0443174109184 124% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.2 13.3589403974 99% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 44.75 53.8541721854 83% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 11.0289183223 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.92 12.2367328918 114% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.21 8.42419426049 109% => OK
difficult_words: 83.0 63.6247240618 130% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 10.7273730684 84% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 Out of 30
---------------------
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.