Ques: Article: The concept of solar power satellites, or SPS, first put forward in the 1960s, is still not widely known by the general public. For example, at many public exhibitions about energy, SPS is not even mentioned. This is mainly because very little money has been spent on SPS research There are people who claim that SPS is unrealistic - because launch costs are much too high today; or because it is too far away. So why do we believe that it is important to continue to do researches on SPS? The reason is very simple. Humans are going to need huge amounts of electric power in coming decades. Within 50 years the world population is expected to double, while economic growth will continue around the world, especially in the poorer countries. But existing energy sources already face serious problems. They are limited; they are polluted; they are dangerous. So 50 or 100 years from now, where is our power going to come from? Nobody knows. And so we believe that new large-scale possibilities should be studied further. We must remember that humans have some choices concerning our future. To some extent we can choose the direction in which our civilization develops. And choices that are made in the coming decades - such as the energy sources that we will or will not use, will have major, long-term meaning for human life on earth. We believe that if research continues to show that SPS is environmentally and economically attractive, SPS will open the door to a much more attractive future for human civilization than any ground-based energy source, and one that the public will support and that young people will find challenging and exciting. Furthermore energy from SPS can be readily used in developing countries, as the SPS 2000 project will show, thus aiding economic development worldwide. In addition, by creating large commercial fund for space engineering, SPS will open the frontier of space to economic development, thus creating a limitless new field for the growth of the world economy. Question: The writer's attitude towards the research can best be summarized by the saying " _ ". Yes or no, is the answer "In time of peace prepare for war"?
Ans: No

Ques: Article: While very young unmanned aircraft industry looks at ways to improve small unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) for specific tasks such facility security, infrastructure inspection, or precision agriculture, a New Mexico-based aerospace founder is thinking bigger and longer-term ones. Titan Aerospace, a one-year-old aircraft designer, last week unveiled its Solara 50 and Solara 60 unmanned aircraft. These are two large solar-powered>> high-altitude vehicles the company plans to send up into space for weeks,months>> and eventually years at a time without ever having to land. Titan doesn't refer to these concept aircraft as "drones " or "unmanned aircraft system," but instead calls them "atmospheric satellites" for their ability to remain in the sky for extended periods of time just as orbital satellites do. The company hopes to provide a platform of less than $2 million that governments, private industry, and research institutions can put high into the atmosphere for extended periods of time for a little part of the cost of a space satellite. The idea is that an atmospheric satellite can conduct most of the same operations as an orbital one: atmospheric observation and weather monitoring, communications relay, oceanographic research, and earth imaging. Other operations are impractical for space satellites, such as border security, maritime traffic monitoring and anti-piracy operations, disaster response, or agricultural observation. And with continuous flight time of up to five years, Solara's aircraft would have endurance on par with (......) many small satellites, making them a more attractive choice for a range of these applications. "If you have to go up to the orbital satellite and rent that service>> that's a lot of money," says Dustin Sanders, Titan's chief electrical engineer. "And launching a satellite, that can cost billions of dollars. We're trying to do a single-million-dollar-per-aircraft platform. And the operation cost is almost nothing--you're paying a little money and make sure the aircraft... Question: We know from the passage that the atmospheric satellite can continue to stay in the sky for _ Yes or no, is the answer "five years"?
Ans: No

Ques: Article: What if we could replace oil with a fuel which produced no pollution and which everybody had equal access to? The good news is that we can. In fact, we are swimming in it--- literally. Hydrogen is one of the building blocks of the universe. Our own sun is basically a big, dense cloud of the stuff. And hydrogen can be used to create electricity for power, heat and light. The problem is that hydrogen is everywhere and nowhere at the same time. It does not exist as a material on its own, but is always part of something else. So it has to be separated before it can be used. Most commercial hydrogen in use now is created from natural gas. As oil will start to run out in around the year 2030, it makes sense to produce as much hydrogen as possible as soon as we can. But natural gas supplies will also begin to run out soon after. Another source is needed. Researchers are now using electricity to make water into hydrogen. Companies are working on the problem in their own areas. The first commercial hydrogen "fuel cells" for computers and mobile phones have already come on to the market. Auto companies have also invested over US $2 billion in the production of hydrogen fuelled cars. The nations of a hydrogen fuelled planet would not fight over energy recourses. There would be a great reduction in pollution. The only by-product of creating hydrogen is pure drinking water--- something that is very scarce in many parts of the world. But that is not where the good news ends. Once the costs of producing hydrogen have been brought down, it will possibly provide power for a third of the Earth's population that has no electricity. And electricity creates wealth. In South Africa over the last decade there has been a large programme of electrification. Thanks to the programme, people do not have to spend their days looking firewood to burn for heat. And with electric light, they can work long into the night. Some scientists see radical changes in the way the human race co-operates. Hydrogen creates electricity, and is also... Question: What is the author's attitude about the future? Yes or no, is the answer "positive"?
Ans: No

Ques: Article: It is often claimed that nuclear energy is something we cannot do without. We live in a consumer society, where there is a huge demand for commercial products of all kinds. Moreover, an increase in industrial production is considered to be one solution to the problem of mass unemployment. Such an increase needs an abundant and cheap energy supply. Many people believe that nuclear energy is endless and economical. There are a number of other advantages in the use of nuclear energy. Firstly, nuclear power, except for accidents, is clean. A further advantage is that a nuclear power station can be run by ly few technical and managing staff. The nuclear power station represents a large step in our scientific research and, whatever the anti-nuclear group says, it is wrong to expect a return to more primitive sources of fuel. However, those who disagree with nuclear energy point out that nuclear power stations bring a direct threat not only to the environment but also to the human race. Furthermore, it is doubtful whether finally nuclear power is a cheap source of energy. There have, for example, been very costly accidents in prefix = st1 /AmericaandRussia. The possibility of increases in the cost of uranium and the cost to ensure its safety could price nuclear power out of the market. In the long run, environmentalists argue, nuclear energy may bring about the destruction of the human race. Thus, if we wish to survive, we cannot afford nuclear energy. Though nuclear energy programmes are expanding, which assumes a continual growth in industrial production and consumer demands. It is doubtful whether this growth will or can continue. Having weighed up the arguments on both sides, it seems there are good economic and environmental reasons for sources of energy other than nuclear power. Question: Some people claim that nuclear energy is necessary because_. Yes or no, is the answer "it can meet the growing demand of energy in an industrially developing society"?
Ans:
No