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 the lecture both are about coal ash and its impact on the environment. The author of the reading feels that creating new regulations to save the environment from the chemicals disposed of coal ash will have a negative impact. The lecturer challenged all the claims made by the author and describes them as below.
Firstly, the writer mentions that the power companies are on effective strict regulations. Additionally, he proves it by taking an example of the liner, which is used to prevent coal ash components from leaking into the soil and damaging it. However, the lecturer says that the regulations they have now are not sufficient to save the environment. For instance, the liner is not been utilized to line the old ponds and filling them. Moreover, chemicals drained from coal ash is contaminating the drinking water and affecting many people.
Secondly, the article predicts that making strict rules for storing and handling coal ash probably discourages recycling of coal ash into various products, and also it shows a decline in customers buying them. The academician refutes this point and brings about the mercury, though it is hazardous to the environment, the government made strict rules to handle it for longer time and consumers have very few complaints about it. So people are not concern about making strict rules.
Finally, the author mentions that making strict rules of handling and disposing of coal ash will increase the cost of electricity by about ten times. On the other hand, the tutor mentions that according to analysis cost will be increased by 50 million dollars which is huge. It does not affect people even though the cost is increased because the increase in the electricity bill is only by 1 percent to each family. Furthermore, it is not a big deal to pay for the people in order to save the environment.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-09-03 | YasamanEsml | 80 | view |
| 2023-06-11 | Vivian Chang | 3 | view |
| 2023-06-09 | Zmx_6 | 80 | view |
| 2023-06-09 | Zmx_6 | 3 | view |
| 2023-04-01 | tststs | 3 | view |
- dinosaurs are endotherms 83
- Did bees a type of insect exist on Earth as early as 200 million years ago Such a theory is supported by the discovery of very old fossil structures that resemble bee nests The structures have been found inside 200 million year old fossilized trees in the 76
- In the past eating avocados was not considered to be necessarily beneficial Being unaware of their beneficial properties people used them mostly as avocado oil for different purposes It wasn t until recently that the advantages of consuming avocados were 53
- burning mirror 76
- Possibilities of living on Mars 73
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 243, 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.
...f coal ash will have a negative impact. The lecturer challenged all the claims made...
^^^
Line 3, column 305, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Possible agreement error -- use past participle here: 'been'.
Suggestion: been
...says that the regulations they have now are not sufficient to save the environment....
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, firstly, furthermore, however, moreover, second, secondly, so, for instance, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 10.4613686534 134% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 5.04856512141 59% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 7.30242825607 151% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 12.0772626932 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 21.0 22.412803532 94% => OK
Preposition: 39.0 30.3222958057 129% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 5.01324503311 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1556.0 1373.03311258 113% => OK
No of words: 314.0 270.72406181 116% => OK
Chars per words: 4.95541401274 5.08290768461 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.20951839842 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.67537912351 2.5805825403 104% => OK
Unique words: 163.0 145.348785872 112% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.519108280255 0.540411800872 96% => OK
syllable_count: 477.0 419.366225166 114% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 45.7099065363 49.2860985944 93% => OK
Chars per sentence: 103.733333333 110.228320801 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.9333333333 21.698381199 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.73333333333 7.06452816374 109% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => 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: 0.160332892228 0.272083759551 59% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0553289716649 0.0996497079465 56% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0510725460653 0.0662205650399 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.100825428191 0.162205337803 62% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0301500367864 0.0443174109184 68% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.4 13.3589403974 93% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 59.64 53.8541721854 111% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.0289183223 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.49 12.2367328918 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.45 8.42419426049 100% => OK
difficult_words: 76.0 63.6247240618 119% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => 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.