The reading is proposed the attitude about uselessly of the athanol and impossibility of replacing that with gasoline, and privides three reasons for that. On the other hand, the lecturer is completely disagree with this idea and believes that athanol can be a good alternative for gasoline and consequently opposes arguments of the author.
First, the reading states that using athanol in cars will release carbon dioxide, just like gasoline and will cause to global warming. However the professor refutes this idea by stating that using ethanole will not cause to generation of carbon dioxcide. She mentions that, even though ir produces carbon dioxcide, considering that ethanol is made by corn and our knowledge about the mechanism of plants lives which attracts carbon dioxide and releases oxigen. Surprisingly demand to productopn more corn for ethanol will cause to attracting more carbon dioxide and releasing more oxigen which perevents global warming.
Second, the passage avers that, due to usage of corns for making athanol their will be less food for animals like caw. On the contrary the lecturer claims that, athanol is made from the parts of the plants which are not eating by animales. So that the production of ethanol will not lead to shortage of food for animales.
Ultimately, the article contents that, ethanol fuel never can compete with gasoline because production of that is very expensive. However the professor rejects this attitude by mentioning that, eventhough now the production expenses of ethanol is high but after increasing demand to using that which will lead to more production of ethanol, due to producting more amount the final price will drop. She states that with producting ethanol three times more than now, the price for each unit will drop by 40%. So that this fuel will be cheap and can compete with gasoline.
The reading
is proposed
the attitude about
uselessly
of the
athanol
and impossibility of replacing that with
gasoline
, and
privides
three reasons for that.
On the other hand
, the lecturer is completely
disagree
with this
idea
and believes that
athanol
can be a
good
alternative for
gasoline
and
consequently
opposes arguments of the author.
First
, the reading states that using
athanol
in cars will release
carbon
dioxide,
just
like
gasoline
and will cause to global warming.
However
the professor refutes this
idea
by stating that using
ethanole
will not cause to generation of
carbon
dioxcide
. She mentions that,
even though
ir
produces
carbon
dioxcide
, considering that
ethanol
is made
by corn and our knowledge about the mechanism of plants
lives
which attracts
carbon
dioxide and releases
oxigen
.
Surprisingly
demand to
productopn
more corn for
ethanol
will cause to attracting more
carbon
dioxide and releasing more
oxigen
which
perevents
global warming.
Second, the passage avers that, due to usage of corns for making
athanol
their will be less food for animals like caw.
On the contrary
the lecturer claims that,
athanol
is made
from the parts of the plants which are not eating by
animales
.
So
that the
production
of
ethanol
will not lead to shortage of food for
animales
.
Ultimately
, the article contents that,
ethanol
fuel never can compete with
gasoline
because
production
of
that is
very
expensive.
However
the professor rejects this attitude by mentioning that,
eventhough
now
the
production
expenses of
ethanol
is high
but
after increasing demand to using that which will lead to more
production
of
ethanol
, due to
producting
more amount the final price will drop. She states that with
producting
ethanol
three times more than
now
, the price for each unit will drop by 40%.
So
that this fuel will be
cheap
and can compete with
gasoline
.