Whereas the reading passage depicts the wave-energy facilities as possessing great advantages, the lecturer claims otherwise. The lecturer points out that while these advantages may seem ostensibly beneficial, reality tells a different story.
First of all, the lecturer refutes the first detail; that wave-energy farms are reliable generators of power. While the passage states that the usage of waves being constant and predictable is the reason for this advantage, the lecturer points out that the energy provision is often disrupted due to technical problems, as it facilitates new technology in harsh marine environments. Various breaktowns and malfunctions result in fluctuations in the amount of power generated, according to the lecturer. The second supporting claim from the passage dismissed by the lecturer is that wave farms are eco-friendly. The lack of fossil fuel usage and pollution of the air and ocean through contaminants such as greenhouse gases and other fuels are mentioned. However, the lecturer asserts that the floating convertors do use chemicals harmful to the eco-system, such as toxic lubricants harmful to marine organisms in cases of leakage, that help the turbines move freely. Finally, the visual impact, which the passage claimed to be non-existent due to its inconspicuosity enabled by small size and its floating characteristics, is discussed. The lecturer states that the floating convertors are highly visible for its bright colors, and that its proximity to the shore also makes it visible for tourists on the beach. |