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 passage discusses three arguments presented by representatives of power companies, which argue against more regulations on handling and storage of coal ash. However, the speaker in the lecture takes the opposite view. She maintains that more regulations should be implemented to preserve the environment.
First of all, the author of the article mentions that environmental regulations already exist. For example, companies have to use liners to prevent leakage of harmful chemicals into the surrounding soil in every new pond or landfill that's used for disposal of coal ash. Conversely, the lecturer brings up the fact that the liners are used only for new disposal sites, but old sites do not have liners. As a result, older locations leak harmful chemicals into groundwater, which, in turn, flow into drinking water.
Secondly, the writer claims that stricter regulations could discourage consumers from buying recycled coal ash products as they would believe they are dangerous to their health. Consequently, less coal ash would be recycled and there would be a need for disposal of a larger amount. Nevertheless, the listening points out that people responded in a different way when strict regulations were applied on mercury-containing items. Thus, it's unlikely that people would stop purchasing recycled coal products due to the new legislations.
Lastly, the author indicates that more regulations would result in increased costs for power companies, which could pass on the cost to customers in the form of higher electricity prices. The lecturer, on the other hand, refutes this interpretation. She explains that the overall hike in cost would be only fifteen billion dollars. Although it seems like a lot of money, it would translate into only one percent increase in the electricity bill for individuals, which is not a big price to pay for a cleaner and safer environment.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 234, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: that's
...ding soil in every new pond or landfill thats used for disposal of coal ash. Converse...
^^^^^
Line 9, column 345, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER[1]
Message: Consider replacing "in a different way" with adverb for "different"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
...tening points out that people responded in a different way when strict regulations were applied on...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 13, column 532, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ay for a cleaner and safer environment.
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, consequently, conversely, first, however, if, lastly, nevertheless, second, secondly, so, thus, for example, as a result, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 10.4613686534 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 5.04856512141 218% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 17.0 22.412803532 76% => OK
Preposition: 39.0 30.3222958057 129% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 5.01324503311 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1616.0 1373.03311258 118% => OK
No of words: 301.0 270.72406181 111% => OK
Chars per words: 5.36877076412 5.08290768461 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.16525528304 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.97893473624 2.5805825403 115% => OK
Unique words: 181.0 145.348785872 125% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.601328903654 0.540411800872 111% => OK
syllable_count: 486.0 419.366225166 116% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 45.0019258847 49.2860985944 91% => OK
Chars per sentence: 107.733333333 110.228320801 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.0666666667 21.698381199 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.5333333333 7.06452816374 149% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.27373068433 164% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.156205908251 0.272083759551 57% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0484989601378 0.0996497079465 49% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0473432164986 0.0662205650399 71% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0883593137682 0.162205337803 54% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0460046871864 0.0443174109184 104% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.9 13.3589403974 104% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 53.8541721854 95% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 11.0289183223 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.87 12.2367328918 113% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.93 8.42419426049 106% => OK
difficult_words: 82.0 63.6247240618 129% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.7273730684 79% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 90.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 27.0 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.