The charts below show the electricity generated in Germany and France for all sources and renewables in years 2009
The pie charts given below illustrate the electricity generated in Germany and France from all sources and renewables in the year 2009. The data is measured in percentage. Overall, it can be seen that the biggest percentage for all types was conventional thermal in Germany and followed by nuclear in France. While the most popular percentage for renewables was biomas in Germany and followed by hydroelectric in Japan.
Based on the all types charts in Germany, the largest percentage was conventional thermal, which was 59.6%. Different from all types in France, the most popular sources was nuclear, it got 76,0%. While, nuclear in Germany was the second biggest sources. Renewables in all types germany was the lowest sources, but it had second sources in France.
On the other hand, renewables was devided into 5 categories, which were biomass, hydroelectric, solar, geothermal and wind. The dominated renewables in Germany was Biomas. Meanwhile, hydroelectric as the biggest renewables in France, which was more than four fifths. Both of renewables in germany and france, wind as the second dominated percentage. Renewables of geothermal was the lowest percentage in Germany, it had 0,0%. This was also the case for Geothermal in France, which experienced very low levels.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-03-13 | eka trisna | 67 | view |
- The charts below show US spending patterns between 1966 and 1996
- The charts below show the electricity generated in Germany and France for all sources and renewables in years 2009 67
- The charts below show the average household expenditures in a country in 1950 and 2010
- The charts below show US spending patterns between 1966 and 1996 60
- The three pie charts below show the changes in annual spending by a particular UK school in 1981 1991 2001 78
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 197, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “While” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...ular sources was nuclear, it got 76,0%. While, nuclear in Germany was the second bigg...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, if, second, so, while, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 7.0 214% => Less to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 1.00243902439 100% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 6.8 103% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 3.15609756098 158% => OK
Pronoun: 6.0 5.60731707317 107% => OK
Preposition: 27.0 33.7804878049 80% => OK
Nominalization: 0.0 3.97073170732 0% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1084.0 965.302439024 112% => OK
No of words: 203.0 196.424390244 103% => OK
Chars per words: 5.33990147783 4.92477711251 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.77462671648 3.73543355544 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.89542888997 2.65546596893 109% => OK
Unique words: 95.0 106.607317073 89% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.467980295567 0.547539520022 85% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 331.2 283.868780488 117% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.45097560976 110% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 1.53170731707 261% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 5.0 4.33902439024 115% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.07073170732 93% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.482926829268 207% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 1.0 3.36585365854 30% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 8.94146341463 157% => OK
Sentence length: 14.0 22.4926829268 62% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 29.5784153237 43.030603864 69% => OK
Chars per sentence: 77.4285714286 112.824112599 69% => OK
Words per sentence: 14.5 22.9334400587 63% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.64285714286 5.23603664747 70% => OK
Paragraphs: 3.0 3.83414634146 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 1.0 1.69756097561 59% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 3.70975609756 81% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 1.13902439024 263% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.09268292683 195% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.30571805059 0.215688989381 142% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.126611568674 0.103423049105 122% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.155063291372 0.0843802449381 184% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.244734273751 0.15604864568 157% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.152578209365 0.0819641961636 186% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.0 13.2329268293 83% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 57.27 61.2550243902 93% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.51609756098 135% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.8 10.3012195122 85% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.1 11.4140731707 115% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.83 8.06136585366 97% => OK
difficult_words: 45.0 40.7170731707 111% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 11.4329268293 74% => OK
gunning_fog: 7.6 10.9970731707 69% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.0658536585 81% => 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.