TPO 41

The lecturer and the reading passage discuss environmental damage that the coal ash has. Although the reading claims that the United States government should create new strikes roles for coal ash, the speaker refutes this idea through several reasons which I will describe in this reporter.

First, the passage points out that power companies have strike roles for using coal ash. For example, the company must be used liner_special material that prevents the laking of coal ash materials. The lecturer, in contrast, rejects this by claiming that the rule and regulation have existed are not sufficient. For example, only new companies that have a new land or pond that can use liner for carrying materials. But, the older companies do not have the liner and the coal ash material leak to the ground or water. Also, if they want to make a liner, they cause a lot of damages. And it is not economical for them.

Furthermore, unlike the passage which states that the government must create strict roles for storing and handling coal ash, and this strict role can prevent buying some product of it. The professor argues that strict roles for carrying and using coal ash cannot prevent using material of it. For example, the government make some strict role for mercury. But it is not a reason that people and consumer did not use it. So it is not practical reasons.

Finally, although the reading passage says that companies must increase the price of electricity that produce from coal ash, the speaker disagrees by mentioning that by increasing the cost of coal ash, the cost power increased about 50 billion dollars. But, if separate this cost to the house, the price of electricity for each house may increase only 1 per cent. And this increase is not very much for people.