Car manufacturers and governments have been eagerly seeking a replacement for the automobile s main source of power the internal combustion engine By far the most promising alternative source of energy for cars is the hydrogen based fuel cell engine which

Essay topics:

Car manufacturers and governments have been eagerly seeking a replacement for the automobile’s main source of power, the internal-combustion engine. By far the most promising alternative source of energy for cars is the hydrogen-based fuel- cell engine, which uses hydrogen to create electricity that, in turn, powers the car. Fuel-cell engines have several advantages over internal-combustion engines and will probably soon replace them.

One of the main problems with the internal-combustion engine is that it relies on petroleum, either in the form of gasoline or diesel fuel. Petroleum is a finite resource; someday, we will run out of oil. They hydrogen needed for fuel-cell engines cannot easily be depleted. Hydrogen can be derived from various plentiful sources, including natural gas and even water. The fact that fuel-cell engines utilize easily available, renewable resources makes them particularly attractive.

Second, hydrogen-based fuel cells are attractive because they will solve many of the world’s pollution problems. An unavoidable by-product of burning oil is carbon dioxide, and carbon dioxide harms the environment. On the other hand, the only byproduct of fuel-cell engines is water.

Third, fuel-cell engines will soon be economically competitive because people will spend less money to operate a fuel-cell engine than they will to operate an internal-combustion engine. This is true for one simple reason: a fuel- cell automobile is nearly twice as efficient in using its fuel as an automobile powered by an internal-combustion engine is. In other words, the fuel-cell powered car requires only half the fuel energy that the internal- combustion powered car does to go the same distance.

Professor
The reading is correct in pointing out the problems associated with oil-powered cars. Yes, oil is a finite resource, and yes, burning oil harms the environment.
However, the reading is way too optimistic in its assessment of hydrogen- based fuel-cell engines. Hydrogen is not the solution to these problems.

First, hydrogen is not as easily available as the passage indicates. Although it’s present in common substances like water it’s not directly useable in that form. For using a fuel-cell engine, hydrogen must first be obtained in a pure liquid state.
This pure liquid hydrogen is a highly artificial substance. It’s technologically very difficult to produce and store liquid hydrogen. For example, it must be kept very very cold at minus 253 degrees Celsius. Imagine the elaborate cooling technology that’s required for that! So hydrogen is not such a practical and easily available substance, is it?

Second, using hydrogen would not solve the pollution problems associated with cars. Why? Producing pure hydrogen creates a lot of pollution. To get pure hydrogen from water or natural gas, you have to use a purification process that requires lots of energy that’s obtained by burning coal or oil. And burning coal and oil creates lots of pollution. So although the cars would not pollute, the factories that generated the hydrogen for the cars would pollute.

Third, there won’t necessarily be any cos savings when you consider how expensive it is to manufacture the fuel- cell engine. That’s because fuel-cell engines require components made of platinum, a very rare and expensive metal. Without the platinum components in the engine, the hydrogen doesn’t undergo the chemical reaction that produces the electricity to power the automobile. All the efforts to replace platinum with a cheaper material have so far been unsuccessful.

Both the reading passage and the lecture discuss about use of hydrogen-based fuel-cell engine over the combustion engine. The former provides three reasons why hydrogen-based fuel-cell engine should be preferred, but the later challenges all of these reasons.
First of all, the passage suggests that the internal-combustion rely on finite resource that is petroleum whereas, the hydrogen-based fuel-cell engine rely on resources that are available plentifully and are renewable. However, the professor in the lecture contends that hydrogen is not easily available and its not a common substance. According to the professor, to keep the hydrogen preserved in the liquid state it requires -253 degree Celsius and it is hard to be maintained.
Secondly, the passage mentions that using hydrogen-based fuel-cell engine car will help the environment as it will decrease the pollution in comparison to the combustion engine. However, the professor in the lecture argues that the reasoning is not practical and the pollution won't decrease with the hydrogen-based engine because purification of hydrogen requires burning of coal and oil. According to the professor, even though the cars won't be polluting the environment but, the production of the car in the factories will pollute the environment.
Finally, the passage talks about how using the hydrogen-based car is economically better and helpful for the people as it is more effective. Nevertheless, like the two suggestion before, the professor in the lectures proclaims that there won't be any cost saving for the people because making the hydrogen-based fuel-cell engine is very expensive as it uses platinum, which is very expensive, rare, and very important for the working of the car. According to the professor, there is no other element that can replace platinum in the engine.

Votes
Average: 7.3 (1 vote)
Essay Categories

Comments

Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, however, if, nevertheless, second, secondly, so, whereas, first of all

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 10.4613686534 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 7.30242825607 137% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 12.0772626932 75% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 15.0 22.412803532 67% => OK
Preposition: 28.0 30.3222958057 92% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 5.01324503311 259% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1551.0 1373.03311258 113% => OK
No of words: 285.0 270.72406181 105% => OK
Chars per words: 5.44210526316 5.08290768461 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.10876417139 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.16642123751 2.5805825403 123% => OK
Unique words: 140.0 145.348785872 96% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.491228070175 0.540411800872 91% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 493.2 419.366225166 118% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 3.25607064018 0% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 11.0 13.0662251656 84% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 25.0 21.2450331126 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 56.6621129267 49.2860985944 115% => OK
Chars per sentence: 141.0 110.228320801 128% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.9090909091 21.698381199 119% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.27272727273 7.06452816374 117% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.27373068433 47% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?

Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.278151332173 0.272083759551 102% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.113384189838 0.0996497079465 114% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0635322959004 0.0662205650399 96% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.179792151194 0.162205337803 111% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0360843309266 0.0443174109184 81% => OK

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.1 13.3589403974 128% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 37.64 53.8541721854 70% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 11.0289183223 129% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.57 12.2367328918 119% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.92 8.42419426049 106% => OK
difficult_words: 73.0 63.6247240618 115% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 10.7273730684 107% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 10.498013245 114% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => OK
What are above readability scores?

---------------------

Rates: 73.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.0 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.