The pie charts below show units of electricity production by fuel source Australia and France in 1980 and 2000 Summarize the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparasions where relevant

The pie chart illustrates the total unit of electricity produced by different source of fuel in Australia and France in year 1980 and 2000. Strikingly, in australia Coal remained the biggest source of electricity while it was replaced by Nuclear power in france in a period of 20 years.

In year 1980, half of the power was generated through the coal while Natural gas and Hydro power contributed in 20 percent each. Oil had the least contribution with 10 units only.In total, 100 units were produced in 1980 which rosed to 170 in year 2000. In which 130 alone from the Coal followed by 36 unit through Hydro power. Surprisingly no electricity produced by Nuclear power.

In France; Natural gas, coal, and oil were biggest source of electricity in 1980 with almost 3 quarter of total 90 units. However in year 2000, Nuclear power emerged as number one source with 126 units followed by Coal and Oil with 25 units each. Natural power and natural gas reduced to a negligible 2 units eachfrom 15 and 5 units respectively.

Overall, electricity generation rose quickly in 20 year time and it almost doubled in both countries.

Votes
Average: 6.7 (1 vote)

Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 180, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: In
...e least contribution with 10 units only.In total, 100 units were produced in 1980 ...
^^
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...electricity produced by Nuclear power. In France; Natural gas, coal, and oil we...
^^^
Line 5, column 39, Rule ID: THE_SUPERLATIVE[2]
Message: A determiner is probably missing here: 'were the biggest'.
Suggestion: were the biggest
... In France; Natural gas, coal, and oil were biggest source of electricity in 1980 with almo...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 123, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
...ith almost 3 quarter of total 90 units. However in year 2000, Nuclear power emerged as ...
^^^^^^^

Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, however, if, so, while

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 4.0 7.0 57% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 1.00243902439 0% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 6.8 118% => OK
Relative clauses : 2.0 3.15609756098 63% => OK
Pronoun: 2.0 5.60731707317 36% => OK
Preposition: 37.0 33.7804878049 110% => OK
Nominalization: 2.0 3.97073170732 50% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 937.0 965.302439024 97% => OK
No of words: 194.0 196.424390244 99% => OK
Chars per words: 4.82989690722 4.92477711251 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.73207559907 3.73543355544 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.63458544996 2.65546596893 99% => OK
Unique words: 98.0 106.607317073 92% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.505154639175 0.547539520022 92% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 278.1 283.868780488 98% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.45097560976 96% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 1.53170731707 0% => OK
Article: 1.0 4.33902439024 23% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.07073170732 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 0.482926829268 207% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 5.0 3.36585365854 149% => OK

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 10.0 8.94146341463 112% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.4926829268 84% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 27.7 43.030603864 64% => OK
Chars per sentence: 93.7 112.824112599 83% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.4 22.9334400587 85% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.7 5.23603664747 52% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 1.69756097561 236% => Less language errors wanted.
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 3.70975609756 108% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 1.13902439024 88% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.09268292683 122% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?

Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.196990183938 0.215688989381 91% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0970719821353 0.103423049105 94% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.097897523526 0.0843802449381 116% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.138323450974 0.15604864568 89% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.106575005595 0.0819641961636 130% => OK

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.0 13.2329268293 83% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 69.11 61.2550243902 113% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.51609756098 135% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.3 10.3012195122 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.73 11.4140731707 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.59 8.06136585366 94% => OK
difficult_words: 37.0 40.7170731707 91% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 11.4329268293 96% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.9970731707 87% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.0658536585 99% => OK
What are above readability scores?

---------------------

Rates: 67.4157303371 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 6.0 Out of 9
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.