▶ Your Answer :
The reading and the lecture are both
about wave-energy facilities. The author of the reading feels that they possess
the potential to be widely used in the future. The lecturer challenges the
claims made by the author. She is of the opinion that the so-called advantages
of wave farms are just an illusion.
To begin with, the author from the reading argues that wave
farms are highly dependable power generators. The article mentions that the
amount of energy generated can be accurately predicted because they use constant
waves. This specific argument is challenged by the lecturer. She contends that
disruptions in the facilities are frequent because of technical problems. Additionally,
she claims that since the farms make use of new technology in harsh marine
conditions, the amount of power generated tends to fluctuate.
Next, the writer suggests that wave
farms do not harm the environment because they do not burn fossil fuels. In the
article, it is said that the facilities do not contain harmful materials that
can leak to the ocean. The lecturer, however, rebuts this by mentioning that floating
converters in wave farms do contain damaging chemicals such as chemical lubricants.
She elaborates on this by bringing up the point that these chemicals are highly
toxic and can have deadly effects on marine organisms if they leak.
Finally, the author from the reading posits that wave
farms do not negatively affect the local scenery. Moreover, it is stated in the
article that the convertors are small and are set up near the surface of the
water, so they are not conspicuous to people. In contrast, the lecturer’s position is
that the convertors are highly noticeable since they are painted in bright
colours. She notes that they are established close to the shore, making them
easily spotted by people. |