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 author highlights three reasons why the companies’ representatives argue that regulations of handling and storing coal ash are unnecessary and might have negative consequences. The lecture refutes this for the following reasons.
Firstly, the author mentions that regulations already exist. For example, the regulations obligate companies to use a liner-special material that prevents coal ash from leaking into the surrounding environment. Thus, coal ash doesn’t contaminate the soil. However, the professor debates this and mentions that the regulations are applied to new lines only. Meanwhile, old lines are not leakage-proof. She goes on and illustrates that coal ash leaks into the groundwater and contaminates drinking water. Therefore, regulations regarding handling and storing coal ash should be applied to new and old lines.
Secondly, the writer mentions that strict regulations might discourage consumers from buying recycled coal ash. Because they would assume it is too dangerous due to strict regulations of handling and storing it. The professor argues that mercury has been handled and stored strictly for many years. She goes on and emphasizes that this didn’t discourage consumers from buying recycled mercury products. On the contrary, consumers buy mercury products. If they think mercury, is too hazardous due to strict regulations, they wouldn’t buy its products.
Lastly, the author mentions that strict regulations will increase the cost of handling and storing coal ash. Eventually, companies will raise the price of electricity to cover the cost of handling and storing. Nevertheless, the lecturer states that according to analysis the costs of handling and storing coal ash will increase the price of electricity by only 1%. She goes on and implies that this minute increase is worth saving the environment from the hazardous effects of coal ash.
To sum up, the professor finds the reasons mentioned invalid and not well-founded.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, firstly, however, if, lastly, nevertheless, regarding, second, secondly, so, therefore, thus, well, while, for example, on the contrary, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 10.4613686534 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 7.30242825607 205% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 22.412803532 107% => OK
Preposition: 29.0 30.3222958057 96% => OK
Nominalization: 2.0 5.01324503311 40% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1687.0 1373.03311258 123% => OK
No of words: 299.0 270.72406181 110% => OK
Chars per words: 5.64214046823 5.08290768461 111% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.1583189471 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.97410365627 2.5805825403 115% => OK
Unique words: 146.0 145.348785872 100% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.488294314381 0.540411800872 90% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 488.7 419.366225166 117% => 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: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 13.0662251656 153% => OK
Sentence length: 14.0 21.2450331126 66% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 36.0227705764 49.2860985944 73% => OK
Chars per sentence: 84.35 110.228320801 77% => OK
Words per sentence: 14.95 21.698381199 69% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.65 7.06452816374 108% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 11.0 4.27373068433 257% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.111312798365 0.272083759551 41% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0396027378324 0.0996497079465 40% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0450794935984 0.0662205650399 68% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0601763388851 0.162205337803 37% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0458603123358 0.0443174109184 103% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.6 13.3589403974 94% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 57.27 53.8541721854 106% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.8 11.0289183223 80% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.84 12.2367328918 121% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.34 8.42419426049 99% => OK
difficult_words: 76.0 63.6247240618 119% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.5 10.7273730684 61% => OK
gunning_fog: 7.6 10.498013245 72% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 73.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.0 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.