The 20th century saw the use of fossil fuels such as coal, gas, and oil as the predominant sources of energy for our society. But, with their use have come a number of serious problems, such as their limited availability and the question of global warming. Nuclear energy must be seen as the solution, as the next logical step in the evolution of energy production.
First, the fuel that powers nuclear power plants is cheap compared to the fossil fuels we currently use to supply most of our energy needs. Because it exists in such abundant supplies, a unit of fuel used in nuclear power plants costs about 7 dollars. This unit produces the same amount of energy as 84 dollars of oil or 29 dollars of gas. The potential savings to consumers is enormous.
Second, despite what some may believe, the process of creating nuclear energy is relatively safe. Though production involves large amounts of dangerous radiation, nuclear power plants incorporate an array of measures to ensure that this radiation is contained and poses no danger to the public. Elaborate equipment is used throughout nuclear plants to monitor and control all processes. Furthermore, this machinery will shut down under any abnormal circumstances to prevent a catastrophe.
Third, the hazardous radioactive waste generated by nuclear power plants can be effectively managed. Fuel reprocessing is one measure often employed. This process takes the waste produced in plants and reuses it. It draws out 25% more energy from the original fuel source and reduces the amount of high-level waste, the most radioactive and therefore dangerous, by 80%. Consequently, the remaining waste possesses much less radioactivity and is even easier to dispose of.
The reading claims that the nuclear energy is an evolution of energy production and must be seen as an option instead of fossil fuels. And, it provides three reasons of support. However, the professor explains that the idea is premature. He concedes that there are well-known advantages, but the reasons mentioned in the articles are not well -thought-out. So, he refutes each of author's reasons.
First, the article avers that the fuel of nuclear power is cheaper than the fossil fuel. The professor opposes this point by saying that the investment needed to build a nuclear plant is very high. He states that building a nuclear plant needs a lot of time and expertise compared to what they need for fossil fuels. Also, legistlations of many countries force nuclear plants to have some programs and equipments to protect public from problems and accidents, so all of these adds up to the significant cost needed for nuclear energy.
Second, the reading posits that the process of making nuclear power is safe. The lecturer states that accidents happen all of the time. Even though the accidents are not catastrophic, they can have a devastating effect. He provides an example of Island of PWR in Pennsylvania to illustrate this. The professor says that even though the radiation caused by the accident did not affect the public, the financial damage was very huge. It took 1 billion dollars to fix the nuclear plant. Also, it had a negative impact by the psychological stress that it caused for the public.
Third, the article asserts that the hazardous radioactive waste can be managed effectively. The professor contends that it is not easily managable. He conceded that they are able to decrease the high level of waste, but there are side problems. For instance, one of the side products of nuclear reactions is Plutuneum 239 which can be used to make nuclear weapons. So, there is a risk of theft to build nuclear weapons. Another problem is the place that they have to burry all of the waste. They must find a place to dispose all of nuclear waste under the ground for hundreds of years which is a very hard task. Furthermore, even after finding the spot, citizens and politicians always take legal actions to not let this happen.
programs and equipments to protect public
programs and equipment to protect public
take legal actions to not let this happen.
take legal actions not to let this happen.
Sentence: Also, legistlations of many countries force nuclear plants to have some programs and equipments to protect public from problems and accidents, so all of these adds up to the significant cost needed for nuclear energy.
Error: legistlations Suggestion: legislation
Sentence: The professor contends that it is not easily managable.
Error: managable Suggestion: manageable
Sentence: Another problem is the place that they have to burry all of the waste.
Error: burry Suggestion: No alternate word
No. of Words: 383 250
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Attribute Value Ideal
Score: 25 in 30
Category: Very Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 2 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 3 2
No. of Sentences: 24 12
No. of Words: 383 250
No. of Characters: 1811 1200
No. of Different Words: 195 150
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.424 4.2
Average Word Length: 4.728 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.495 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 130 80
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 95 60
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 56 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 35 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 15.958 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.509 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.5 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.265 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.432 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.082 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 4
I often receive your comment saying that "write the essay in 20 minutes". The truth is none of my essays are written in more than 20 min. I wrote the above essay in 19 min and 30 sec, the exact time that I spent.
Few people can type No. of Words: 383 in 20 minutes, so the E-rater gave warning messages. You can ignore it if you can do it. But we still suggest you type less words however leave around 3 minutes for grammar and spelling check out.
Thanks. I will.
I really appreciate how fast you grade my essays. It is really helpful.