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.
Last try:10/28/2020 10:18Word Count: 312
Both the author and the speaker present different perspectives of imposing new stringent rules to ameliorate the damage from harmful chemicals like coal ash. The representatives are against the idea and feel that new legislations might be unnecessary and harmful while the speaker feels that they are very much substantial.
To begin with, the representatives claim the existing rules as sufficient by highlighting the use of liners to prevent dissemination of coal ash components to the surrounding atmosphere. However, the narrator is not convinced with the existing rules and refers the use of liner as a partial measurement. To validate her claim, she mentions that only the new landfills are using liners. Despite a significant amount of ashes are released from the old landfills, no rules to mandate liners for them. So she feels that new strict rules should be inaugurated for both old and new landfills.
Secondly, the representatives assert that the sales of recycled coal ash products will be significantly hampered if stricter rules are imposed. Nonetheless, the author refutes this claim too and mentions the example of Mercury as an hazardous element and the impact of recycling Mercury with strict regulations. She demonstrates from mercury recycling that people are not really aware of these changes.
Thirdly, the representatives are worried about the expenses that have to bear to make the new rules practical. Although the speaker also agrees with that, she mentions that as a whole it won't affect that much. In total, the project will cost around 15 billion which might seam a big amount at first, however, it will rise the electricity bill by 1% for individual. So, she considers it justified for the sake of environment.
To conclude, both the author and the speaker discuss about the new rules implementation and the author seems skeptical about it. However, the speaker is convinced with the new decision.
| 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 |
- Although the sale of rhinoceros horns is illegal worldwide rhinoceroses Rhinos are commonly poached hunted illegally for their horns which can be sold for tens of thousands of dollars per kilogram Rhino horns are so valuable that one type of rhino is alre 70
- The Mozart School of Music should be the first choice for parents considering enrolling their child in music lessons First of all the Mozart School welcomes youngsters at all ability and age levels there is no audition to attend the school Second the scho 73
- The following appeared in a memo from the director of student housing at Buckingham College To serve the housing needs of our students Buckingham College should build a number of new dormitories Buckingham s enrollment is growing and based on current tren 55
- Teachers salaries should be based on their students academic performance 66
- In the United States employees typically work five days a week for eight hours each day However many employees want to work a four day week and are willing to accept less pay in order to do so A mandatory policy requiring companies to offer their employee 80
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 231, 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
... and mentions the example of Mercury as an hazardous element and the impact of rec...
^^
Line 7, column 193, Rule ID: AFFECT_EFFECT[1]
Message: Did you mean 'effect'?
Suggestion: effect
...t, she mentions that as a whole it wont affect that much. In total, the project will cost a...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 68, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'rules'' or 'rule's'?
Suggestion: rules'; rule's
...r and the speaker discuss about the new rules implementation and the author seems ske...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, however, if, nonetheless, really, second, secondly, so, third, thirdly, while, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 10.4613686534 115% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 22.412803532 107% => OK
Preposition: 38.0 30.3222958057 125% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1629.0 1373.03311258 119% => OK
No of words: 312.0 270.72406181 115% => OK
Chars per words: 5.22115384615 5.08290768461 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.20279927342 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.98715025572 2.5805825403 116% => OK
Unique words: 165.0 145.348785872 114% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.528846153846 0.540411800872 98% => OK
syllable_count: 499.5 419.366225166 119% => 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: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 13.0662251656 122% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 38.441056746 49.2860985944 78% => OK
Chars per sentence: 101.8125 110.228320801 92% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.5 21.698381199 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.5625 7.06452816374 93% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => 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: 4.0 4.27373068433 94% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.113575832821 0.272083759551 42% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0378681395916 0.0996497079465 38% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0526191031427 0.0662205650399 79% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0683023899453 0.162205337803 42% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0529647702716 0.0443174109184 120% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.9 13.3589403974 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 53.8541721854 97% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.0289183223 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.0 12.2367328918 106% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.68 8.42419426049 103% => OK
difficult_words: 81.0 63.6247240618 127% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 10.7273730684 135% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.2008830022 116% => 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.