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 cites three reasons to support the view point that new regulations for dealing with and storing coal ash should be created. Nevertheless, the lecturer in the listening material argues that it is unnecessaru to implement new and strict regulations,and opposes the points in the reading material.
Firstly, the author argues that we already have effective regulations, which requires companies dispoosing of coal ash in disposal ponds or landfills to use liner in every step. However, the lecture offers an opposite stand that the existing regilation is not sufficient enough. To be more specific, the existing regulation only requires companies to use liner in new ponds and landfills. Coal ash components in old ponds or landills still do a huge damage to the environment, leading into the soil and contamintaing the drinking water.
In addition, the lecturer casts doubt on the author's second reasond that new regulations may discourage the recycling of coal ash into other products, because consumers will be aware of the danger of recycled coal ash products and stop buying them; and also demonstrates that although the raw material is dangerous, consumers will not stop buying the products of it. For example, products made of another dangerous raw material have been sold for 50 years, illustrating that consumers are not afraid of buying them.
Finally, the author's third reason that higher price for handling coal ash will force power companies to increase the price of electricity, which is not welcomed by the general public, is also counteracted by the lecturer who points out that the result worths paying higher price. Although it will increase total cost about 15 billion for the power companies, the price for the public only rises about one percent on average, which is worthy for the cleaner environment.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 258, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , and
... to implement new and strict regulations,and opposes the points in the reading mater...
^^^^
Line 3, column 444, Rule ID: A_UNCOUNTABLE[3]
Message: Uncountable nouns are usually not used with an indefinite article. Use simply 'huge damage'.
Suggestion: huge damage
...nents in old ponds or landills still do a huge damage to the environment, leading into the so...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 169, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'public'.
Suggestion: public
...ectricity, which is not welcomed by the general public, is also counteracted by the lecturer w...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, firstly, however, if, may, nevertheless, second, so, still, third, for example, in addition
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.4613686534 105% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 15.0 22.412803532 67% => OK
Preposition: 33.0 30.3222958057 109% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1545.0 1373.03311258 113% => OK
No of words: 296.0 270.72406181 109% => OK
Chars per words: 5.21959459459 5.08290768461 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.14784890444 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.75184835619 2.5805825403 107% => OK
Unique words: 163.0 145.348785872 112% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.550675675676 0.540411800872 102% => OK
syllable_count: 464.4 419.366225166 111% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 3.25607064018 0% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 10.0 13.0662251656 77% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 29.0 21.2450331126 137% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 77.6021262595 49.2860985944 157% => OK
Chars per sentence: 154.5 110.228320801 140% => OK
Words per sentence: 29.6 21.698381199 136% => OK
Discourse Markers: 11.3 7.06452816374 160% => 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: 2.0 4.27373068433 47% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.156046364855 0.272083759551 57% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0596024311603 0.0996497079465 60% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0418333381877 0.0662205650399 63% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0909675485535 0.162205337803 56% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0231257165011 0.0443174109184 52% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.0 13.3589403974 135% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 42.04 53.8541721854 78% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.6 11.0289183223 132% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.59 12.2367328918 111% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.18 8.42419426049 109% => OK
difficult_words: 77.0 63.6247240618 121% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 10.7273730684 107% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.6 10.498013245 130% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.2008830022 125% => 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.