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.

There is controversy between environmentalists in United States who are insisting on the importance of creating much stricter regulations for handling and storing coal ash, a product of burning coal in power plants which are potentially harmful, and representatives of the companies. The author states these company's opinions against enforcing stricter rules but the lecturer refutes each of these reasons and believes that it's necessary to do so.

First, the article states that there exist effective regulations for storing ash for example the companies are required to use liner, an special material which prevents ash from leaking into the soil. However, the professor claims that the current regulations are not sufficient. She avers that the companies are obliged to use liner only on the new fields and ponds but there have occurred a lot of leakages in older disposal fields.

Second, the reading claims that coal ash is being recycled now, for example, in building materials like concrete and breaks, and creating very strict rules would discourage the consumers from using such harmful recycled materials because of their concern. However, the lecturer says that it won't necessarily yield to the consumer's excessive concern and provides an example of Mercury recycling to illustrate this. She claims that the Mercury is being recycled for decades under very strict rules but the people are using these materials despite their knowledge its dangers and regulations.

Third, the passage avers that this stricter rules will increase the expense of the power plants and therefore the electricity bills which would not be welcomed by public. Even tough the professor agrees on that the rules will increase the production expense by 15 billion dollars, she claims that this will yield to an increment of one percent on the consumer's bills which is really negligible with respect to saving the enviroment.

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

Comments

Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 135, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'a' instead of 'an' if the following word doesn't start with a vowel sound, e.g. 'a sentence', 'a university'
Suggestion: a
...he companies are required to use liner, an special material which prevents ash fro...
^^

Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, really, second, so, therefore, third, for example, with respect to

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

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 10.4613686534 124% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 7.30242825607 164% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 12.0772626932 124% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 22.412803532 107% => OK
Preposition: 35.0 30.3222958057 115% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1612.0 1373.03311258 117% => OK
No of words: 303.0 270.72406181 112% => OK
Chars per words: 5.3201320132 5.08290768461 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.17215713816 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.66652778778 2.5805825403 103% => OK
Unique words: 163.0 145.348785872 112% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.53795379538 0.540411800872 100% => OK
syllable_count: 492.3 419.366225166 117% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 10.0 13.0662251656 77% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 30.0 21.2450331126 141% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 58.5631283317 49.2860985944 119% => OK
Chars per sentence: 161.2 110.228320801 146% => OK
Words per sentence: 30.3 21.698381199 140% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.7 7.06452816374 123% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 4.45695364238 22% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.27373068433 94% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?

Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.189320491734 0.272083759551 70% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0689312018509 0.0996497079465 69% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0810350922285 0.0662205650399 122% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.108567174554 0.162205337803 67% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0703471539018 0.0443174109184 159% => OK

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.8 13.3589403974 141% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.03 53.8541721854 76% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.0 11.0289183223 136% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.17 12.2367328918 116% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.61 8.42419426049 114% => OK
difficult_words: 86.0 63.6247240618 135% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 19.0 10.7273730684 177% => OK
gunning_fog: 14.0 10.498013245 133% => OK
text_standard: 19.0 11.2008830022 170% => OK
What are above readability scores?

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

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.