The debate was especially focused on two types of sources especially, these were: wind and nuclear power. The debate was especially focused on two types of sources: wind and nuclear power.

The debate was focused on two specific types of sources especially, these were: wind and nuclear power. The debate was focused on two specific types of sources: wind and nuclear power.

RegardingI don't think it's sensible to use nuclear power, to my way of thinking there is no point in using this type of energyrun a tourist island. I don't think it's sensible to use nuclear power to run a tourist island.

" to my way of thinking there is no point in using this type of energy." This sounds like a very strong and general conclusion. The reasons you give below are more particular to a tourist island, so I have softened this and made it more specific.

Regarding nuclear power, tTo my way of thinking, there is no point in using this type of energyan energy source like nuclear power. To my way of thinking, there is no point in using an energy source like nuclear power.

First of all, contrary to the Youtube video, it is not renewable and therefore not sustainable, unlike it was expressed during the discussion; but m. More importantly, residualit generateds residue that remained as radioactive for thousands of years, causing a deleterious; this will damage in the ocean, which it and is not a good advertisement for tourists. First of all, contrary to the Youtube video, it is not renewable and therefore not sustainable. More importantly, it generates residue that remains radioactive for thousands of years; this will damage the ocean and is not a good advertisement for tourists.

"unlike it was expressed during the discussion" is incorrect. Otherwise I made changes to make the style clearer and more natural.

First of all, it is not renewable and therefore not sustainable, unlike iwhat was expressed during the discussion; but more importantly, the residue/ residual waste generated can remained as radioactive for thousands of years, causing a delet and cause serious damage into the ocean, which it is not a good advertisement for touristsputs off tourists from visting (the area). First of all, it is not renewable and therefore not sustainable, unlike what was expressed during the discussion; but more importantly, the residue/ residual waste generated can remain radioactive for thousands of years and cause serious damage to the ocean, which puts off tourists from visting (the area).

"deletéreo" no es una palabra común en inglés, a menos que seas poeta :p

Beyond that fact,Another objection is that a nuclear power station is excessive only for an island, even for one with the size of Australia. Another objection is that a nuclear power station is excessive for an island, even one with the size of Australia.

"is excessive only for an island" is incorrect. I think you mean, "is excessive for powering just an island".

Beyond that factAside from this, a nuclear power station is excessive only for an island, even for one with the size of Australia. Aside from this, a nuclear power station is excessive for an island, even for one with the size of Australia.

Wind is a realgenuinely renewable source of energy, and a reliable one for an island, since there is often a vast ocean surrounding it, which is an almost endless surface to this purposn island is usually surrounded by ocean that can be used to farm it, making it reliable. Wind is a genuinely renewable source of energy, and an island is usually surrounded by ocean that can be used to farm it, making it reliable.

I wasn't quite sure what you meant by "which is an almost endless surface to this purpose." Which purpose? How is it used?

Wind is a realform of renewable energy and indeed a reliable one for an island, since there is often a vast ocean surrounding it, which is an almost endless surface to this purpose. As such, it is unlikely to run out anytime soon. Wind is a form of renewable energy and indeed a reliable one for an island, since there is often a vast ocean surrounding it. As such, it is unlikely to run out anytime soon.

In this sense, there is no need of and it will be impracticable using any square meter of landscape, as it was said in the debate. In this sense, there is no need of and it will be impracticable using any square meter of landscape, as it was said in the debate.

"there is no need of [what?]" "it will be impracticable using any square meter of landscape," what does this mean? I don't know what you were trying to say here.

In this sense, thereAs such, nuclear energy is not need of and it will be impracticable using any square meter of landscapecessary and the size of a nuclear power plant makes it impractical for an island, as it was said in the debate. As such, nuclear energy is not necessary and the size of a nuclear power plant makes it impractical for an island, as was said in the debate.

In short, wind is a clean, cheap and renewable source of energy, which fi that perfectly infits the needs of a tourist island, where; oceanic wind currents will provide plenty of energy for the extra needed, for example, for leisure activitieleisure activities and other tourist needs. In short, wind is a clean, cheap and renewable source of energy that perfectly fits the needs of a tourist island; oceanic wind currents will provide plenty of energy for leisure activities and other tourist needs.

You left out some important words here.

In short, wind is a clean, cheap and renewable source of energy, which fit perfectly ingoes well with a tourist island, where oceanic wind currents will provide plenty of energy for the extra needed, for example, for leisure activities. In short, wind is a clean, cheap and renewable source of energy, which goes well with a tourist island, where oceanic wind currents provide plenty of energy for leisure activities.

ToI conclude, that wind turbines seem to be the best candidates to cover an tourist island's energy supply, yet it is only for tourists, whereas. This argument is specific to tourist islands, however, and a nuclear power plant may have only disadvantages in othis specificer contexts. I conclude that wind turbines seem to be the best candidates to cover a tourist island's energy supply. This argument is specific to tourist islands, however, and a nuclear power plant may have advantages in other contexts.

"yet it is only for tourists" what is [it]? "a nuclear power plant have only disadvantages in this specific context" in which specific context? I had to guess.

To conclude, wind turbines seem to be the best candidates to cover an island's energy supply, yet it is only for tourists, whereas a nuclear power plant have only disdoes not have any advantages in this specific context. To conclude, wind turbines seem to be the best candidates to cover an island's energy supply, yet it is only for tourists, whereas a nuclear power plant does not have any advantages in this specific context.