You should spend about 20 minutes on this task.
The pie charts show the electricity generated in Germany and France from all sources and renewables in the year 2009.
Summarize the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant.
Write at least 150 words.
The pie charts compare the production of the electricity from different sources in Germany and France in a one year period. Overall, it can be seen that generation of the electricity in Germany and France in 2009 was the 560 billion kilowatt and 510 billion kilowatt respectively.
The biggest source of electricity in Germany was the conventional thermal, at 59.6%, while it contributed very less for France, at 10.3%. The largest contribution for France was the nuclear, at 76.%, whereas for it accounted just 23.0 %.
Moving to the renewable, this is accounted quite similar proportion for both countries, at approximately 15 % of total energy. In detail, in Germany biomass and wind accounted almost 70 % which was higher than the hydroelectricity and solar. In France hydroelectricity accounted 80 % while the biomass, solar and wind made up 20% of renewable electricity.
In conclusion, conventional thermal produced largest proportion of electricity in Germany whereas the nuclear was the main source of electricity in France.
- Improvements in health, education and trade are essential for the development of poorer nations. However, the governments of richer nations should take more responsibility for helping the poorer nations in such areas 77
- The graph shows the proportion of population aged 65 and over between 1940and 2040 in three different countries. Summarize the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant. 75
- Task 1 60
- Should wealthy nations be required to share their wealth among poorer nations by providing such things as food and education? Or is it the responsibility of the governments of poorer nations to look after their citizens themselves. 65
- the table below shows the proportion of different categories of families living in poverty in Australia in 1999 74
Attribute Value Ideal
Score: 7.0 out of 9
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 8 10
No. of Words: 161 200
No. of Characters: 838 1000
No. of Different Words: 85 100
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 3.562 4.0
Average Word Length: 5.205 4.6
Word Length SD: 3.159 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 67 60
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 52 50
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 30 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 27 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.125 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 3.059 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.5 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.472 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.751 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.158 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 4