The article introduces the topic of alternative energy sources. More specifically, the writer discusses the
advantages of wave farms, and how they are superior to all other options. The lecturer in the listening
passage disagrees. He believes that each energy source has certain drawbacks and attacks each of the
claims made in the reading.
In the reading, the author begins by stating that wave farms do not negatively impact the environment in
any way, unlike the burning of fossil fuels which damages the ozone layer. The lecturer, however,
disagrees with this viewpoint. He states that wave farms also emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere in
order to operate. He goes on to say that dangerous chemicals are released into the ocean during the
construction of wave farms.
The author also claims that what makes wave farms stand apart from other alternative energy sources,
such as solar, is the predictability of waves and how they can provide a reliable amount of energy. Again,
the lecturer believes there are flaws in the writer's argument. The speaker holds that wave energy is just
as unstable as solar due to technical issues at the farms. Furthermore, harsh conditions can disrupt the
process of the generators.
Another reason why the author feels that wave farms are better is that they are environmentally friendly,
not hurting animals as wind turbines often do. The professor in the listening passage is doubtful that this
is accurate. He suggests that certain devices in the wave farm produce a loud sound which disturbs nearby
birds and other marine life. Moreover, animals could become trapped or caught up in parts of the
machines.
To sum up, both the writer and professor hold conflicting views about the benefits of wave farm energy.
It's clear that they will have trouble finding common ground on this issue.
The article introduces the topic of alternative
energy
sources. More
specifically
, the writer discusses the
advantages of
wave
farms
, and how they are superior to all other options. The lecturer in the listening
passage disagrees. He believes that each
energy
source has certain drawbacks and attacks each of the
claims made in the reading.
In the reading, the author
begins
by stating that
wave
farms
do not
negatively
impact the environment in
any way, unlike the burning of fossil fuels which damages the ozone layer. The lecturer,
however
,
disagrees with this viewpoint. He states that
wave
farms
also
emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere in
order to operate. He goes on to say that
dangerous
chemicals
are released
into the ocean during the
construction of
wave
farms.
The author
also
claims that what
makes
wave
farms
stand apart from other alternative
energy
sources,
such as solar, is the predictability of
waves
and how they can provide a reliable amount of
energy
. Again,
the lecturer believes there are flaws in the writer's argument. The speaker holds that
wave
energy
is
just
as unstable as solar due to technical issues at the
farms
.
Furthermore
, harsh conditions can disrupt the
process of the generators.
Another reason why the author feels that
wave
farms
are better is that they are
environmentally
friendly,
not hurting animals as wind turbines
often
do. The professor in the listening passage is doubtful that this
is accurate. He suggests that certain devices in the
wave
farm
produce a loud sound which disturbs nearby
birds and other marine life.
Moreover
, animals could become trapped or caught up in parts of the
machines.
To sum up, both the writer and professor hold conflicting views about the benefits of
wave
farm
energy.
It's
clear
that they will have trouble finding common ground on this issue.