Tpo41
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.
Summarize the points made in the lecture, being sure to explain how they challenge the specific arguments presented in the reading passage.
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 reading passage states that some power companies think the deciding stricter regulations for handling and storing coal ashes is unnecessary and current regulations are already sufficient. However, the professor in the lecture casts doubt on the points made in the reading passage.
First, considering the reading passage, environmental regulations to prevent coal ash leaking to soil and water already exist. companies have to use liner in every new pond or landfill. In contrast, the professor in the lecture believes that current regulations are not enough because this prevent leaking activities should not be limited to new ponds. Old ponds and landfills can be damaged too and coal ash will leak to water and soil from them.
Second, the reading claimes that stricter rules will make a distraction of recycling and its benefits. Also people may think coal ash is too dangerous to be recycled and then be used again. On the contrary, the professor in the lecture refutes the information presented in the article and makes the point by exemplifying an earlier experience. Mercury have had strict handling rules for many years and besides, recycled and used again without making people affraid. Therefore, the same strategy can be applied to coal ash too.
Third, the author in the reading passage puts forward the idea that disposal and handling costs will increase too much due to new regulations which is not desirable by public. On the other hand, the speaker contradicts the excuse and adds up that the cost will cost about 15 billion dollars which is approximately 1 percent of household electricity cost. Hence, the increase in costs is totally worth considering the influence.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 128, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Companies
...eaking to soil and water already exist. companies have to use liner in every new pond or ...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 13, column 104, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Also,
...traction of recycling and its benefits. Also people may think coal ash is too danger...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, besides, first, hence, however, if, may, second, so, then, therefore, third, in contrast, on the contrary, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 10.4613686534 115% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 5.04856512141 158% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 7.30242825607 192% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 12.0772626932 58% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 8.0 22.412803532 36% => OK
Preposition: 31.0 30.3222958057 102% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1440.0 1373.03311258 105% => OK
No of words: 275.0 270.72406181 102% => OK
Chars per words: 5.23636363636 5.08290768461 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.07223819929 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.68649761241 2.5805825403 104% => OK
Unique words: 154.0 145.348785872 106% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.56 0.540411800872 104% => OK
syllable_count: 432.0 419.366225166 103% => 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: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 44.2052263971 49.2860985944 90% => OK
Chars per sentence: 102.857142857 110.228320801 93% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.6428571429 21.698381199 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.28571428571 7.06452816374 131% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.27373068433 140% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.441018831102 0.272083759551 162% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.144624984024 0.0996497079465 145% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.108143412645 0.0662205650399 163% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.252764039505 0.162205337803 156% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0829462381254 0.0443174109184 187% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.1 13.3589403974 98% => 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: 13.11 12.2367328918 107% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.31 8.42419426049 99% => OK
difficult_words: 65.0 63.6247240618 102% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 10.7273730684 107% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => 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.