Hassan Muslli
EAP2 A
Summary Response
Alternative energy
In this article “ Alternative energy: talk isn’t strategy “ the author argues that the government needs to do more than talk about alternative energy. According to the author Bush talks about how is very important to research and find more sources in Alaska by drilling. Also, the author mentions that Bush says that the government will build homes are equipped with solar plants to generate electricity. However, the author says there are people who refuse Bush’s idea about drilling in Alaska. Moreover, the author mentions that the government still continues to admit more foreign oil. Furthermore, the author dispute Bush talking too much will not solve the problems and Bush must fine the solution. Finally, the author says discussion is good but we need a good policy.
It is obvious the author’s points are very important and should be respected. The government should stop looking for new oil fields. America is dependent on oil but the solution is not continuing destroying the environment. Also the government needs to make it better without destroy it. In addition, America needs more and more energy and that kind of energy should be from other resource like solar or biomass and there are a lot of resources the government should consider it as important resources. Finally, Bush and the Congress have refused to increase conserving fuel. The government should find new solutions for alternative energy. They need to find also another resource not only depends on oil and fossil fuel; because the world is running out fossil fuel and our demand for electric power keeps increasing and fossils fuels pollute the earth.
First, America is developed country and it depends in incredibly percent on oil. For example, if America stops buying foreign oil it will not continue developing more than now. Because America depends on oil and as we know there are a few oil fields in United States and the government looking for new oil fields. Also, searching for oil cost a lot of money, so it is better if the government keeps buying foreign oil and spends searching and extracting money for makes a new projects.
Second, looking for new oil fields destroy the environment. As we know America have the most wonderful fields like in the world like in Alaska. The government keeps looking for new oil fields that will be waste of nature. People consider United States as a place to see how is the nature works there and make beautiful looking in all seasons. So destroying the nature will also decline the visitor for United States
Finally, America is urban country and this required more and more energy to e successful. With making a new projects or make the country more developed, the government needs to find new sources or replacement source just in case the country will loose one. It means more sources US have lead to more energy. In addition, every source there is time and it will end on day, so more resources for energy gives the country more time to survive and accelerate time to develop.
In conclusion, America is dependent relative with oil and without it the country cannot advance. Environment in America should be nature not nurture so the government should take care of it and not destroy it. Energy is very significant in our life and more sources for it lead to better life. The solution here is not looking for new fields, but the solution is find more sources to keep the new generations in safe and make them in depend on themselves.
Sunday, March 04, 2007
Friday, March 02, 2007
Attention Governments! Nuclear power is not the solution
EAP2, Writer’s Workshop
February 23, 2007
Outline
Attention Governments! Nuclear power is no the solution
Thesis: Governments should not support nuclear power and they should stop use it as alterative energy source.
I. Introduction
A. The world depends on nuclear power.
B. Disadvantages of nuclear power.
C. Thesis: Governments should not support nuclear power and they should stop use it as alterative energy source.
II. Background:
A. What is Uranium?
B. Nuclear power caused cold war between countries.
C. Competition between countries about who will build more nuclear power plants.
III. Main Arguments:
A. Nuclear power is dangerous and it can cause health problems for human and can cause environmental problems.
1. Cause cancer and disease.
2. Radiation can spread thousands miles.
3. The diseases may be in long term.
B. Is nuclear power plants are very expensive.
1. Expensive to build.
2. Save money if the governments did not use it.
3. Nuclear power is nonrenewable source.
C. Nuclear power takes long time we need to build one nuclear energy plant.
1. 20 year and still not secure.
2. Governments are continuing nuclear tests and the results are negative.
IV. Conclusion
A. Three reason to stop it.
B. Government should care more about this issue and they should stop it.
Abstract
The topic of this paper is nuclear power. It argues that nuclear power should not be used as alternative energy source and should not be supported. There are three reasons for this argument. The first one is nuclear power very dangerous for human being, and the second one is nuclear power is very expensive. Finally, nuclear power plant takes long time to build.
Nuclear power
About 75 percent of the electricity is generated from nuclear power. All the energy in the world depends in these percent. However, there are a lot of disadvantages of nuclear power. In "Nuclear power is dangerous. Expensive even outdated. There are much more modern energy sources" Rifkin (2006) says that " with a minimum price tag of 2 billion each, new generation nuclear power plants are 50 percent more expensive than putting coal-fired power plants online, and they are far more expensive than new gas-fired power plants" (para 3). The author mentions here about how nuclear power plants are expensive, but is this just the only disadvantage of nuclear power? Of course no because there are a lot of disadvantages that nuclear power should not considered as alterative energy source because it is very dangerous to human body and for the environment, also it is too expensive to extract and make useful power from nuclear energy. Finally, it takes long time to build nuclear power plant and this time is waste. Governments should not support nuclear power and they should stop use it as alterative energy source.
Scientists discovered before 20 years ago about new power, huge amount of power, they found a significant constituent called Uranium, which is formed in stars. Old stars before thousands of years ago exploded, then the dust and the rest of these shattered became together and this formed our planet, the Earth. Now days, all the world become interesting to these power and the Uranium became an important constituent and most find and use. In addition, there is a cold war now between countries about nuclear power plants. United Stats refuse Russia and Iran to build nuclear power plants because they use it for nuclear bomb. In fact, in "could nuclear power give coal a challenge" the author tell us "Russia plans to build more than fifty new nuclear power plants and china plans to add between 20 to 30 new plants by 2020" (Energy Publishing, 2007, Para 13). So the danger from this power it is possible to use it to make nuclear bomb.
First, nuclear power is dangerous and it can cause health problems for human and can cause environmental problems. If the explosion happened accidentally the radiation can spread three thousands mile, it is like the whole Australia. Moreover, it changes our environment. For example, Goodman (2006) says that "The revival of interest in nuclear energy is linked directly to concern about global warming. Nuclear reactors do not emit carbon dioxide…" (para 7). Goodman shows here how can nuclear power effect the environment and be the main cause for global warming. According to Gilbert (2006) says "global warming is among the most pressing concern. It's estimated that a three fold expansion of nuclear power worldwide by 2050 could contribute significantly to preventing climate change. An expansion of nuclear power on that scale would avoid 1 billion to 2 billion tons of carbon emission annually"
In addition, it can be dangerous to human body in many ways and it can cause long term diseases. Until now the scientists did not safe way to transfer. According to Rifkin (2006) " 60 years into nuclear era, our scientists still don’t know how to safety transport, dispose of or store nuclear waste" (para 4). In conclusion, the danger in nuclear power can effect our exists and our environment so we should not use nuclear power as source of energy.
The second reasons that should not use nuclear power as energy source is nuclear power plants are very expensive. To build one nuclear power plant we need to spend 2 billion. According to Elston (2007) said that " In Ontario, the McGuinty government has committed more that $40 billion for nuclear construction and the refurbishing of the province's existing fleet of aging reactors" (para 2). We can use this money on many other things that can benefit us. For example, we can invest other type of energy like Biomass, Natural gas or Solar-hydrogen because it is cheaper, renewable sources and not toxic. In conclusion, the high amount of money we use it to built nuclear energy we need to use it in other things that can use as good source in energy.
The third reason is the long time we need to build one nuclear energy plant. More than 20 years and until now they could not build nuclear power plant 100 percent safe. According to Rifkin (2006) "In the United State, the federal government spent more than $8 billion and 20 years building what was supposed to be an airtight, underground burial tomb dug deep into Yucca Mountain in Nevada to hold radioactive material."(para 4). So they tried to make it safety as much as they can and they depend on the long term but it still perilously. Also, it is waste time which is should be used to do for another things like build more sources like hydro power, and it take much less time than nuclear power. In conclusion, the time is very important, rather than waste time on testing new things like nuclear power plants we should build new plant that depend on other sources like hydro power, wind, coal and solar. Governments are continuing nuclear tests and the results are negative. They need to look for the real solutions which are in other resources.
The opponent of using nuclear power as alterative energy source says that the energy we got from this source is much more than any another source and this will help the world to used more energy. Unfortunately, the energy we get from nuclear power is huge, but we get it after many levels. For example, extracting Uranium from the earth waste heat and this heat is so important to keep the constituent crude and useful, but when Uranium transfer to nuclear plant will be a high percentage of that heat gone. In addition, anytime uranium divided in wrong way the operation will fail. So it needs high quality of machines and experts should be very intelligent. So any defects will ruin the process. In conclusion, the huge amount of energy we get from nuclear power will help the industry, but the process to this energy require containing a lot of problems not solved yet.
In conclusion, nuclear power should not be used as alterative energy source. We need to keep the world save from any danger and nuclear power is one of the causes of these dangers. Money we spend to build nuclear power should be used to build other sources of energy. The world is moving fast in the revolution and we do not need to waste any time. Nuclear power is taking a long time in build and process. The author try to show how nuclear power is will help the revolution and industry and this is good. However, what is the point if we have good industry and bad environment? Government should care more about this issue because the industry would to complete the nuclear power projects. In the same time we will lose the environment and we will cause a lot of dangers in this world.
Reference:
Rifkin, J. (2006). Nuclear power is dangerous, expensive, even outdated. There are much more modern energy sources. Los Angeles Times, no. 43, pp 11. Retrieved February 22, 2007, from LexisNexis.
Brown, G (2006). Nuclear power will aid the crisis. Media News Group, no. 9. Retrieved February 22, 2007, from LexisNexis.
Goodman, J (2006). The nuclear option. DBA Governing Magazine. Retrieved February 22, 2007, from LexisNexis.
Bove, J (2006). Is nuclear power an answer? Columbia Daily Spectator. Retrieved February 22, 2007, from LexisNexis.
Could nuclear power give coal a challenge? (Jan 22, 2007) Energy Publishing. Retrieved February 22, 2007, from LexisNexis
EAP2, Writer’s Workshop
February 23, 2007
Outline
Attention Governments! Nuclear power is no the solution
Thesis: Governments should not support nuclear power and they should stop use it as alterative energy source.
I. Introduction
A. The world depends on nuclear power.
B. Disadvantages of nuclear power.
C. Thesis: Governments should not support nuclear power and they should stop use it as alterative energy source.
II. Background:
A. What is Uranium?
B. Nuclear power caused cold war between countries.
C. Competition between countries about who will build more nuclear power plants.
III. Main Arguments:
A. Nuclear power is dangerous and it can cause health problems for human and can cause environmental problems.
1. Cause cancer and disease.
2. Radiation can spread thousands miles.
3. The diseases may be in long term.
B. Is nuclear power plants are very expensive.
1. Expensive to build.
2. Save money if the governments did not use it.
3. Nuclear power is nonrenewable source.
C. Nuclear power takes long time we need to build one nuclear energy plant.
1. 20 year and still not secure.
2. Governments are continuing nuclear tests and the results are negative.
IV. Conclusion
A. Three reason to stop it.
B. Government should care more about this issue and they should stop it.
Abstract
The topic of this paper is nuclear power. It argues that nuclear power should not be used as alternative energy source and should not be supported. There are three reasons for this argument. The first one is nuclear power very dangerous for human being, and the second one is nuclear power is very expensive. Finally, nuclear power plant takes long time to build.
Nuclear power
About 75 percent of the electricity is generated from nuclear power. All the energy in the world depends in these percent. However, there are a lot of disadvantages of nuclear power. In "Nuclear power is dangerous. Expensive even outdated. There are much more modern energy sources" Rifkin (2006) says that " with a minimum price tag of 2 billion each, new generation nuclear power plants are 50 percent more expensive than putting coal-fired power plants online, and they are far more expensive than new gas-fired power plants" (para 3). The author mentions here about how nuclear power plants are expensive, but is this just the only disadvantage of nuclear power? Of course no because there are a lot of disadvantages that nuclear power should not considered as alterative energy source because it is very dangerous to human body and for the environment, also it is too expensive to extract and make useful power from nuclear energy. Finally, it takes long time to build nuclear power plant and this time is waste. Governments should not support nuclear power and they should stop use it as alterative energy source.
Scientists discovered before 20 years ago about new power, huge amount of power, they found a significant constituent called Uranium, which is formed in stars. Old stars before thousands of years ago exploded, then the dust and the rest of these shattered became together and this formed our planet, the Earth. Now days, all the world become interesting to these power and the Uranium became an important constituent and most find and use. In addition, there is a cold war now between countries about nuclear power plants. United Stats refuse Russia and Iran to build nuclear power plants because they use it for nuclear bomb. In fact, in "could nuclear power give coal a challenge" the author tell us "Russia plans to build more than fifty new nuclear power plants and china plans to add between 20 to 30 new plants by 2020" (Energy Publishing, 2007, Para 13). So the danger from this power it is possible to use it to make nuclear bomb.
First, nuclear power is dangerous and it can cause health problems for human and can cause environmental problems. If the explosion happened accidentally the radiation can spread three thousands mile, it is like the whole Australia. Moreover, it changes our environment. For example, Goodman (2006) says that "The revival of interest in nuclear energy is linked directly to concern about global warming. Nuclear reactors do not emit carbon dioxide…" (para 7). Goodman shows here how can nuclear power effect the environment and be the main cause for global warming. According to Gilbert (2006) says "global warming is among the most pressing concern. It's estimated that a three fold expansion of nuclear power worldwide by 2050 could contribute significantly to preventing climate change. An expansion of nuclear power on that scale would avoid 1 billion to 2 billion tons of carbon emission annually"
In addition, it can be dangerous to human body in many ways and it can cause long term diseases. Until now the scientists did not safe way to transfer. According to Rifkin (2006) " 60 years into nuclear era, our scientists still don’t know how to safety transport, dispose of or store nuclear waste" (para 4). In conclusion, the danger in nuclear power can effect our exists and our environment so we should not use nuclear power as source of energy.
The second reasons that should not use nuclear power as energy source is nuclear power plants are very expensive. To build one nuclear power plant we need to spend 2 billion. According to Elston (2007) said that " In Ontario, the McGuinty government has committed more that $40 billion for nuclear construction and the refurbishing of the province's existing fleet of aging reactors" (para 2). We can use this money on many other things that can benefit us. For example, we can invest other type of energy like Biomass, Natural gas or Solar-hydrogen because it is cheaper, renewable sources and not toxic. In conclusion, the high amount of money we use it to built nuclear energy we need to use it in other things that can use as good source in energy.
The third reason is the long time we need to build one nuclear energy plant. More than 20 years and until now they could not build nuclear power plant 100 percent safe. According to Rifkin (2006) "In the United State, the federal government spent more than $8 billion and 20 years building what was supposed to be an airtight, underground burial tomb dug deep into Yucca Mountain in Nevada to hold radioactive material."(para 4). So they tried to make it safety as much as they can and they depend on the long term but it still perilously. Also, it is waste time which is should be used to do for another things like build more sources like hydro power, and it take much less time than nuclear power. In conclusion, the time is very important, rather than waste time on testing new things like nuclear power plants we should build new plant that depend on other sources like hydro power, wind, coal and solar. Governments are continuing nuclear tests and the results are negative. They need to look for the real solutions which are in other resources.
The opponent of using nuclear power as alterative energy source says that the energy we got from this source is much more than any another source and this will help the world to used more energy. Unfortunately, the energy we get from nuclear power is huge, but we get it after many levels. For example, extracting Uranium from the earth waste heat and this heat is so important to keep the constituent crude and useful, but when Uranium transfer to nuclear plant will be a high percentage of that heat gone. In addition, anytime uranium divided in wrong way the operation will fail. So it needs high quality of machines and experts should be very intelligent. So any defects will ruin the process. In conclusion, the huge amount of energy we get from nuclear power will help the industry, but the process to this energy require containing a lot of problems not solved yet.
In conclusion, nuclear power should not be used as alterative energy source. We need to keep the world save from any danger and nuclear power is one of the causes of these dangers. Money we spend to build nuclear power should be used to build other sources of energy. The world is moving fast in the revolution and we do not need to waste any time. Nuclear power is taking a long time in build and process. The author try to show how nuclear power is will help the revolution and industry and this is good. However, what is the point if we have good industry and bad environment? Government should care more about this issue because the industry would to complete the nuclear power projects. In the same time we will lose the environment and we will cause a lot of dangers in this world.
Reference:
Rifkin, J. (2006). Nuclear power is dangerous, expensive, even outdated. There are much more modern energy sources. Los Angeles Times, no. 43, pp 11. Retrieved February 22, 2007, from LexisNexis.
Brown, G (2006). Nuclear power will aid the crisis. Media News Group, no. 9. Retrieved February 22, 2007, from LexisNexis.
Goodman, J (2006). The nuclear option. DBA Governing Magazine. Retrieved February 22, 2007, from LexisNexis.
Bove, J (2006). Is nuclear power an answer? Columbia Daily Spectator. Retrieved February 22, 2007, from LexisNexis.
Could nuclear power give coal a challenge? (Jan 22, 2007) Energy Publishing. Retrieved February 22, 2007, from LexisNexis
Thursday, March 01, 2007
Jeddah! The coast city of Saudi Arabia
My city is Jeddah and it’s a coast city. It is located in the west coast of Saudi Arabia. Of course the first thing I will show to the tourists is the Red Sea. I'm a diver and I have an advanced license, so I can show them how beautiful the Red Sea is under water. In addition, I will show them the malls, many malls we have in Jeddah, and I'm sure people who are from abroad will like it!
There are a lot of good places I would like to show them, like our resorts, islands and beaches. Generally in resorts each family has its own beach, which is wonderful. My favorite resort is called Moevenpick Al-Nawras. I love it! That's because each villa has a view of the Sea, and also people will swim in their own pool and each pool has a view of the Red Sea, and that is make swimming more enjoyable.
My city is Jeddah and it’s a coast city. It is located in the west coast of Saudi Arabia. Of course the first thing I will show to the tourists is the Red Sea. I'm a diver and I have an advanced license, so I can show them how beautiful the Red Sea is under water. In addition, I will show them the malls, many malls we have in Jeddah, and I'm sure people who are from abroad will like it!
There are a lot of good places I would like to show them, like our resorts, islands and beaches. Generally in resorts each family has its own beach, which is wonderful. My favorite resort is called Moevenpick Al-Nawras. I love it! That's because each villa has a view of the Sea, and also people will swim in their own pool and each pool has a view of the Red Sea, and that is make swimming more enjoyable.
Hassan Muslli
EAP2
TOEFL Paper-based test
Students come to study from all over the world to the United States and Canada. They want complete their education there to have more skills and more high degree in the life. They become international students and they need to take TOEFL Paper-based test before they join the university. But this kind of TOEFL tests does not prove their English in so many ways, although it is very important to be admitted to an American university. It should not be considered as a value for their English. Also, TOEFL test should not be considered as a value of English’s students.
First, TOEFL Paper-based test has limited skills. For example, it does not contain speaking section, which is very important for students who are very good at speaking. So the students will get low scores because they did not take the part they good at it. In addition, in the TOEFL Paper-base test there is writing section, which is very important for people who they are good in writing. For example, journalists are very good in writing and if we judge if they are good in English by TOEFL tests it will not evaluate them with good score. If they include writing essay they will do better. If they include the writing section and put time for speaking section in the TOEFL paper based it will be a good value for the students who are going to join the American Universities.
TOEFL paper base test need to be in relevant subjects. For example, there are less topics about real life of the students and how they deal with problems in the Universities, they need to choose subjects from inside the campus like In the IBT Test. Students care about American university and American lifestyle which that what the students need to be considered about. The Organization of TOEFL include in the test stories about things doesn’t have any relation academically. In addition, the topics in TOEFL Paper based are so complicated. For example, some of it very difficult for student who are don't know about Western Culture, and as it's known It's difficult to try figure and guess what people from different culture like or dislike, unless there is information about that culture, so they need to choose topics easy for international students and in the same time teach them about the new culture they never know about it before.
TOEFL paper base test get the students stress time. Each section in the TOEFL test contain with around one hour and for three hours students will have a lot of pressure just trying to get the best score in the test. So it is too long and that’s make the students exhausted. Also, There are tricky Questions, which are in the all test, and the students need to take care of it. In addition, different question in the TOEFL test give the stress for the students by confusing them and that's will not let them focus in the main idea in the TOEFL test.
The opponents of TOEFL paper based test say it is easy for the universities to deal with the students from their scores because they can see whether the students can study will in the university or not. However, is not true, because if the schools judge about the students by taking TOEFL test or not, it wont help some students who are really good at English, but they did not do very well on the TOEFL test. Each school or university should make a special program or test work with colleges and majors. The problem it is not easy for all the universities in the United States or Canada test all students in the same why, in fact, not all the university in the United Stats are the same, for example Harford University and Yale University are the most hardest Universities in the world.
In conclusion, limited skills in the TOEFL test cannot prove and judgment students if they good in English or not, they need to focus about the subjects in the TOEFL test and make it appropriate with academic parts and western culture. And they need to organize the time in the TOEFL test like divided the sections in different days or give a long break time. Also, each university should make an individual exam work with majors and college they afforded and every year they need to change it to better and add more idea on the test. Students try to take TOEFL IBT out side the university and it cost a lot just to join the university, so the university should considered what is in TOEFL IBT test and it is not present in the TOEFL Paper-Based test. Or they can give the students in inside the university IBT test and include the price with the tuition.
EAP2
TOEFL Paper-based test
Students come to study from all over the world to the United States and Canada. They want complete their education there to have more skills and more high degree in the life. They become international students and they need to take TOEFL Paper-based test before they join the university. But this kind of TOEFL tests does not prove their English in so many ways, although it is very important to be admitted to an American university. It should not be considered as a value for their English. Also, TOEFL test should not be considered as a value of English’s students.
First, TOEFL Paper-based test has limited skills. For example, it does not contain speaking section, which is very important for students who are very good at speaking. So the students will get low scores because they did not take the part they good at it. In addition, in the TOEFL Paper-base test there is writing section, which is very important for people who they are good in writing. For example, journalists are very good in writing and if we judge if they are good in English by TOEFL tests it will not evaluate them with good score. If they include writing essay they will do better. If they include the writing section and put time for speaking section in the TOEFL paper based it will be a good value for the students who are going to join the American Universities.
TOEFL paper base test need to be in relevant subjects. For example, there are less topics about real life of the students and how they deal with problems in the Universities, they need to choose subjects from inside the campus like In the IBT Test. Students care about American university and American lifestyle which that what the students need to be considered about. The Organization of TOEFL include in the test stories about things doesn’t have any relation academically. In addition, the topics in TOEFL Paper based are so complicated. For example, some of it very difficult for student who are don't know about Western Culture, and as it's known It's difficult to try figure and guess what people from different culture like or dislike, unless there is information about that culture, so they need to choose topics easy for international students and in the same time teach them about the new culture they never know about it before.
TOEFL paper base test get the students stress time. Each section in the TOEFL test contain with around one hour and for three hours students will have a lot of pressure just trying to get the best score in the test. So it is too long and that’s make the students exhausted. Also, There are tricky Questions, which are in the all test, and the students need to take care of it. In addition, different question in the TOEFL test give the stress for the students by confusing them and that's will not let them focus in the main idea in the TOEFL test.
The opponents of TOEFL paper based test say it is easy for the universities to deal with the students from their scores because they can see whether the students can study will in the university or not. However, is not true, because if the schools judge about the students by taking TOEFL test or not, it wont help some students who are really good at English, but they did not do very well on the TOEFL test. Each school or university should make a special program or test work with colleges and majors. The problem it is not easy for all the universities in the United States or Canada test all students in the same why, in fact, not all the university in the United Stats are the same, for example Harford University and Yale University are the most hardest Universities in the world.
In conclusion, limited skills in the TOEFL test cannot prove and judgment students if they good in English or not, they need to focus about the subjects in the TOEFL test and make it appropriate with academic parts and western culture. And they need to organize the time in the TOEFL test like divided the sections in different days or give a long break time. Also, each university should make an individual exam work with majors and college they afforded and every year they need to change it to better and add more idea on the test. Students try to take TOEFL IBT out side the university and it cost a lot just to join the university, so the university should considered what is in TOEFL IBT test and it is not present in the TOEFL Paper-Based test. Or they can give the students in inside the university IBT test and include the price with the tuition.
DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL: AMERICA’S ALTERNATIVE ENERGY STRATEGIES
All people where in the world depend on oil for keep living. These days due to industrialization, globalization and resources, which are decreasing, oil is becoming the most inalienable resource. We walk in the forest of modern technology and we always need energy sources especially oil. For these reasons, people are searching new ideas for resolutions. In the article, “Alternative energy: Talk isn’t strategy,” the author concludes that American alternative energy strategies are not functional. The author says that America has to produce new and convenient projects. I agree with the author given that sources of energy are getting lost. Therefore we have to find out new strategies and development them.
The author of the article “Alternative energy: Talk isn’t strategy,” is discussing the America’s new alternative energy’s positive and negative qualities. According to the author, the alternative energy appearances like a good idea but it is not a useful solution. Bush mentions that gasoline prices can be dropped by the alternative energy. Also the author states that ethanol alone cannot solve American foreign oil addiction. According to the author, America needs a solution as soon as possible. However the alternative energy doesn’t immediately replace. I agree with the author. This strategy looks like a useful theory but we can understand after analyses, that it is not useful. In addition the author doesn’t feel comfortable with these strategies, because they are not enough for us.
First, Bush claims that gasoline prices have dropped for two months with the alternative energy. On the one hand, the author explains that researching new energy sources and solving mechanical problems are very expensive. It will be a lot more to produce ethanol from grass and plant waste on top of research and solution. Conversely, this amount is worthless compared to pay to taxes for oil companies, according to Bush. Also he adds that if we breaking our addiction of oil, we have to stop financial support.
Second, the author states that ethanol cannot solve the problem, because most oil is from overseas. Americans use almost one barrel of the oil everyday, which is from overseas. This amount is too much for substitution with ethanol. According to him, example of Brazilians is a very good instance: make ethanol from sugar cane. On the other hand we have to account to sugar prices and its taxes.
Third, people don’t have any time to wait to solve the energy problems. Bush stated that project is not ready yet. Scientists and citizens agree with that we are in a case of emergency. Furthermore America needs to drill (bore) for oil and gas in Alaska and abroad that is near water. However, many ecologists don’t want to make it. Next, Bush and the Congress have refused increase high car mileage more than current standards. Conversely, Bush efforts to build more vehicles that run on E85 (15% gasoline and 85% ethanol) but owners of these cars cannot find it and use gasoline. As a result we have been losing time still with these argues and instabilities.
In conclusion, countries of world need find new sources or new strategies for use situated ones. The American Government tries to solve the dependent of foreign oil. America still needs a complete policy immediately. In addition, strategies to conserve energy, improve efficiency, and develop more alternative energy sources contribute to energy diversification.
Reference:
McClatchy. (2006). Alternative Energy: Talk Isn’t Strategy. Tribune News Services. Retrieved February 8, 2007, from Lexis-Nexis database.
All people where in the world depend on oil for keep living. These days due to industrialization, globalization and resources, which are decreasing, oil is becoming the most inalienable resource. We walk in the forest of modern technology and we always need energy sources especially oil. For these reasons, people are searching new ideas for resolutions. In the article, “Alternative energy: Talk isn’t strategy,” the author concludes that American alternative energy strategies are not functional. The author says that America has to produce new and convenient projects. I agree with the author given that sources of energy are getting lost. Therefore we have to find out new strategies and development them.
The author of the article “Alternative energy: Talk isn’t strategy,” is discussing the America’s new alternative energy’s positive and negative qualities. According to the author, the alternative energy appearances like a good idea but it is not a useful solution. Bush mentions that gasoline prices can be dropped by the alternative energy. Also the author states that ethanol alone cannot solve American foreign oil addiction. According to the author, America needs a solution as soon as possible. However the alternative energy doesn’t immediately replace. I agree with the author. This strategy looks like a useful theory but we can understand after analyses, that it is not useful. In addition the author doesn’t feel comfortable with these strategies, because they are not enough for us.
First, Bush claims that gasoline prices have dropped for two months with the alternative energy. On the one hand, the author explains that researching new energy sources and solving mechanical problems are very expensive. It will be a lot more to produce ethanol from grass and plant waste on top of research and solution. Conversely, this amount is worthless compared to pay to taxes for oil companies, according to Bush. Also he adds that if we breaking our addiction of oil, we have to stop financial support.
Second, the author states that ethanol cannot solve the problem, because most oil is from overseas. Americans use almost one barrel of the oil everyday, which is from overseas. This amount is too much for substitution with ethanol. According to him, example of Brazilians is a very good instance: make ethanol from sugar cane. On the other hand we have to account to sugar prices and its taxes.
Third, people don’t have any time to wait to solve the energy problems. Bush stated that project is not ready yet. Scientists and citizens agree with that we are in a case of emergency. Furthermore America needs to drill (bore) for oil and gas in Alaska and abroad that is near water. However, many ecologists don’t want to make it. Next, Bush and the Congress have refused increase high car mileage more than current standards. Conversely, Bush efforts to build more vehicles that run on E85 (15% gasoline and 85% ethanol) but owners of these cars cannot find it and use gasoline. As a result we have been losing time still with these argues and instabilities.
In conclusion, countries of world need find new sources or new strategies for use situated ones. The American Government tries to solve the dependent of foreign oil. America still needs a complete policy immediately. In addition, strategies to conserve energy, improve efficiency, and develop more alternative energy sources contribute to energy diversification.
Reference:
McClatchy. (2006). Alternative Energy: Talk Isn’t Strategy. Tribune News Services. Retrieved February 8, 2007, from Lexis-Nexis database.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)