The material discusses the usage of hydrogen-based-fuel-cell engine to power cars instead of internal-combustion engine. While the reading states that using fuel-cell engines have several advantages, the listening mentions that the reading is correct in pointing out the problems related to using petroleum, but the professor says that the author is very optimistic.
First, the writer posits that hydrogen can not be easily declined and it could be brought from many sources, such as water and natural gas. On the other hand, the lecturer challneges this and states that hydrogen is not easily available. the professor mentions that people could not use hydrogen directly from water, but it should go through complicated process. The listening adds that hydrogen in a pure liquid state is high artificial substance. The speaker explains that it could be produced in a very cool temperature, which is very hard to attain.
Second, The author claims that using fuel-cell engine could solve the world's pollution problems. On the contrary, the lecturer opposes this and states that using hydrogen to power cars is not a realistic way to solve pollution problems. The professor explains that producing hydrogen from water or natural gas needs to burn coals or oil and that could produce lots of pollution.
Third, the reading mentions that using fuel-cell engine is cost-effective. The speaker refutes this and states that it is not necessary for hydrogen to be less costive. The professor explains that the maufacture of hydrogen costs lot money becasue the engine should have platinum metal, which is very expensive. The lecturer adds that without this metal the hydrogen could not do reaction and produce electricity.
The material discusses the usage of hydrogen-based-fuel-cell
engine
to power cars
instead
of internal-combustion
engine
. While the reading
states
that using fuel-cell
engines
have several advantages, the listening mentions that the reading is correct in pointing out the problems related to using petroleum,
but
the
professor
says that the author is
very
optimistic.
First
, the writer posits that hydrogen can not be
easily
declined and it could
be brought
from
many
sources, such as water and natural gas.
On the other hand
, the lecturer
challneges
this and
states
that hydrogen is not
easily
available.
the
professor
mentions that
people
could not
use
hydrogen
directly
from water,
but
it should go through complicated process. The listening
adds
that hydrogen in a pure liquid
state
is high artificial substance. The speaker
explains
that it could
be produced
in a
very
cool temperature, which is
very
hard
to attain.
Second, The author claims that using fuel-cell
engine
could solve the world's pollution problems.
On the contrary
, the lecturer opposes this and
states
that using hydrogen to power cars is not a realistic way to solve pollution problems. The
professor
explains
that producing hydrogen from water or natural gas needs to burn coals or oil and that could produce lots of pollution.
Third, the reading mentions that using fuel-cell
engine
is cost
-effective. The speaker refutes this and
states
that it is not necessary for hydrogen to be less
costive
. The
professor
explains
that the
maufacture
of hydrogen costs lot money
becasue
the
engine
should have platinum metal, which is
very
expensive.
The
lecturer
adds
that without this metal the hydrogen could not do reaction and produce electricity.