Burning coal in power plants produces a waste product called coal ash, a material that contains small amounts of potentially harmful chemicals. Environmentalists in the United States are concerned about the damage such harmful chemicals may be doing to th

Essay topics:

Burning coal in power plants produces a waste product called coal ash, a material that contains small amounts of potentially harmful chemicals. Environmentalists in the United States are concerned about the damage such harmful chemicals may be doing to the environment and suggest that the United States government should create new, much stricter regulations for handling and storing coal ash.

However, representatives of power companies take the opposite view: they argue that new regulations are unnecessary and might actually have negative consequences. They use the following arguments to support their position.

Regulations Exist

First, power company representatives point out that effective environmental regulations already exist. For example, one very important regulation requires companies to use liner—special material that prevents coal ash components from leaking into the soil and contaminating the surrounding environment. Companies that dispose of coal ash in disposal ponds or landfills must use liner in every new pond or landfill they build.

Concerns About Recycling Coal Ash

Second, some analysts predict that creating very strict rules for storing and handling coal ash might discourage the recycling of coal ash into other products. Currently, a large portion of coal ash generated by power plants is recycled: it is used, for example, in building materials such as concrete and bricks. Recycling coal ash reduces the need to dispose of it in other ways and presents no environmental danger. However, if new, stricter rules are adopted for handling coal ash, consumers may become concerned that recycled coal ash products are just too dangerous, and may stop buying the products.

Increased Cost

Finally, strict new regulations would result in a significant increase in disposal and handling costs for the power companies—perhaps as much as ten times the current costs. Power companies would be forced to increase the price of electricity, which would not be welcomed by the general public.

The reading and lecture are about whether the United States government should impose new, much stringent rules for usage and storage of coal ash which contains chemicals that are potentially harmful to the environment. The authors of the reading, the representatives of power companies, feel that new restrictions are not needed and may have an overall detrimental effect for three reasons. The lecturer challenges the claims made by the authors. She is of the opinion that these arguments do not hold water.

To begin with, the authors argue that existing environmental regulations are effective. The article supports this reasoning by stating that a very significant rule requires the companies to use liner for every new disposal pond or landfill they construct which is a special material that prevents leaking of coal ash components into the soil. The lecturer challenges this argument. She claims that the rules are not sufficient as the companies are required to use liner only for new disposal sites but contamination can occur from old disposal ponds or landfill. Additionally, she says that harmful chemicals may leak into the soil and contaminate the drinking water underground. So, stricter regulations are required which will force the companies to use liner for both old and new disposal ponds or landfills.

Secondly, the writers suggest that creating very strict policies might discourage the recycling of coal ash into other products. In the article, it is stated that a large portion of coal ash is recycled and used in building materials like concrete and bricks, and if rigorous rules are placed for handling coal ash, consumers may become concerned regarding the danger of coal ash and may stop using the products. However, the lecturer rebuts this by mentioning that strict regulation doesn't necessarily mean that people will stop buying recycled materials. She elaborates on this by bringing up the point that similar demanding regulations were imposed on the usage and storage of mercury but the consumers didn't stop using the recycled products of this chemical.

Finally, the authors posit that strict regulations may result in increased costs for power companies. Moreover, the article says that the price of electricity may increase as a result of the increased cost imposed on the

Votes
Average: 8 (1 vote)
Essay Categories
Essays by the user:

Comments

Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 392, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...l detrimental effect for three reasons. The lecturer challenges the claims made by ...
^^^
Line 9, column 485, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...is by mentioning that strict regulation doesnt necessarily mean that people will stop ...
^^^^^^
Line 9, column 708, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
...nd storage of mercury but the consumers didnt stop using the recycled products of thi...
^^^^^

Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, however, if, may, moreover, regarding, second, secondly, so, as a result, to begin with

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

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 10.4613686534 124% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 5.04856512141 218% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 15.0 7.30242825607 205% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 18.0 12.0772626932 149% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 22.412803532 120% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 36.0 30.3222958057 119% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1954.0 1373.03311258 142% => OK
No of words: 370.0 270.72406181 137% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.28108108108 5.08290768461 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.38581623665 4.04702891845 108% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.76562431777 2.5805825403 107% => OK
Unique words: 194.0 145.348785872 133% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.524324324324 0.540411800872 97% => OK
syllable_count: 597.6 419.366225166 143% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 13.0662251656 122% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 21.2450331126 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 68.822121262 49.2860985944 140% => OK
Chars per sentence: 122.125 110.228320801 111% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.125 21.698381199 107% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.3125 7.06452816374 89% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.27373068433 70% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?

Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.188985364226 0.272083759551 69% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0563283936269 0.0996497079465 57% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.073933169578 0.0662205650399 112% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.113797971684 0.162205337803 70% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0592583846651 0.0443174109184 134% => OK

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.0 13.3589403974 112% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 53.8541721854 89% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 11.0289183223 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.64 12.2367328918 111% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.17 8.42419426049 109% => OK
difficult_words: 103.0 63.6247240618 162% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.7273730684 79% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.498013245 107% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?

---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.

Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 Out of 30
---------------------
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.