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

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 article states that new and strict regulations for handling and storing coal ash are unnecessary and have negative consequences. The author also provides 3 supports of reasons. However, the professor explains that new strict regulations should be applied and refutes each of the author's reasons.

First, the reading claims that effective environmental regulations already exist and provides an example of a liner that prevents coal ash from leaking soil and contaminate the environment. The prof refutes this point by saying that liner-special materials are not sufficient. He states that it is used only on the new site. That's why old disposal will leak harmful chemicals into the ground and pollutes drinking water.

Second, the article posits that creating strict rules might discourage the recycling of coal ash into other products. However, the professor explains that rules will not stop recycling. According to the professor, Mercury has strict rules but it has been recycled for a long time.

Third, the reading says that new strict rules would increase disposal and handling cost for the power company and power company will force the increase the price of electricity. However, the professor opposes this point by explaining that the increasing disposal and handling cost would be worthy. We also learn that only 1% electricity price will be increased that is not a big amount to pay for the general public.

Votes
Average: 7.5 (1 vote)
Essay Categories
Essays by the user:

Comments

Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 326, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: That's
...s that it is used only on the new site. Thats why old disposal will leak harmful chem...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 402, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'public'.
Suggestion: public
...that is not a big amount to pay for the general public.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, second, so, third

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

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 10.4613686534 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 5.04856512141 158% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 7.30242825607 151% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 22.412803532 80% => OK
Preposition: 13.0 30.3222958057 43% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 1.0 5.01324503311 20% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1203.0 1373.03311258 88% => OK
No of words: 228.0 270.72406181 84% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.27631578947 5.08290768461 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.88582923847 4.04702891845 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.68000401386 2.5805825403 104% => OK
Unique words: 125.0 145.348785872 86% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.548245614035 0.540411800872 101% => OK
syllable_count: 357.3 419.366225166 85% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 21.2450331126 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 41.3909060132 49.2860985944 84% => OK
Chars per sentence: 92.5384615385 110.228320801 84% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.5384615385 21.698381199 81% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.38461538462 7.06452816374 48% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
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 : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => 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: 0.120945294618 0.272083759551 44% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0410552216174 0.0996497079465 41% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0338285304274 0.0662205650399 51% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0709241370667 0.162205337803 44% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0311393389249 0.0443174109184 70% => OK

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.2 13.3589403974 91% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 53.8541721854 101% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.0289183223 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.05 12.2367328918 107% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.29 8.42419426049 98% => OK
difficult_words: 55.0 63.6247240618 86% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 10.7273730684 84% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.498013245 84% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?

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

Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.5 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.