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
In this set of materials, the article, and lecture both discuss burning coal ash. The article strongly postulates that stricter regulation imposed for handling and dealing with coal ash has certain negative effects, therefore, they are not compulsoary. However, the lecturer cast strict doubt on the reading arguments by stating that regulation of the coal ash is the only option left, and gainsays each of arguments from reading.
First and foremost the writer begins by asserting that there are already policies existed for coal ash control, where a special liner is used to hinder its leakage into the soil. On the other hand, the lecturer dismisses the point by positioning that current regulation for controlling coal ash spread is not enough. He goes onto say that recentally liners are only used for new ponds and landfills. Whereas liners are not used for old ponds, the chemical released from the old pond goes into soil and can cause significant damage to the drinking water. Therefore, more strict regulations on all types of ponds(new and old) should be initiated.
Furthermore, the lecturer mentions recycling coal ash would not raise any concern among the public. He exemplifies that with another hazardous substance, mercury.Its been %0 years now that mercury is recycled because of it's hazardous nature and it recycling did not create any problem between public. These claims clearly refute the writer implication that strict regulations for recycling make people conscious about use of recycled coal ash products as people will consider it dangerous.
Ultimately, the writer wraps up its arguments by declaring that disposing coal ash would increase the companies financial budget that leads to a skyrocket in the price of electricity for people. NOt surprisingly, the writer takes an issue with that by contending thought cost to power companies would raise to 15 billion dollar, seeing the matter meticulously reveals that average increase for every household will be 1% of their previous bill. Therfore, this increase is beneficial as it would result in environmental clearence.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-09-03 | YasamanEsml | 80 | view |
| 2023-06-11 | Vivian Chang | 3 | view |
| 2023-06-09 | Zmx_6 | 80 | view |
| 2023-06-09 | Zmx_6 | 3 | view |
| 2023-04-01 | tststs | 3 | view |
- working as team versus working alone 70
- Glass is a favored building material for modern architecture yet it is also very dangerous for wild birds Because they often cannot distinguish between glass and open air millions of birds are harmed every year when they try to fly through glass windows T 85
- pyramids tpo 3
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement Governments should spend more money in support of arts than in support of athletics such as state sponsored Olympic teams Use specific reasons and examples to support your answe 90
- Where do you think the government should invest less in a difficult economic situation in arts parks and public gardens or scientific researc 76
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 162, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: Its
...th another hazardous substance, mercury.Its been %0 years now that mercury is recyc...
^^^
Line 4, column 270, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...an issue with that by contending thought cost to power companies would raise to 1...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, furthermore, however, if, so, therefore, whereas, 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 : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 22.412803532 116% => OK
Preposition: 36.0 30.3222958057 119% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1766.0 1373.03311258 129% => OK
No of words: 334.0 270.72406181 123% => OK
Chars per words: 5.2874251497 5.08290768461 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.27500489853 4.04702891845 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.70824230014 2.5805825403 105% => OK
Unique words: 196.0 145.348785872 135% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.586826347305 0.540411800872 109% => OK
syllable_count: 534.6 419.366225166 127% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 3.25607064018 184% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 21.2450331126 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 52.188678497 49.2860985944 106% => OK
Chars per sentence: 126.142857143 110.228320801 114% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.8571428571 21.698381199 110% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.28571428571 7.06452816374 75% => 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 : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => 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: 0.151533453956 0.272083759551 56% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0555914441543 0.0996497079465 56% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0381943766354 0.0662205650399 58% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0896127572658 0.162205337803 55% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.029000590422 0.0443174109184 65% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.4 13.3589403974 115% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 53.8541721854 89% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 11.0289183223 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.7 12.2367328918 112% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.46 8.42419426049 112% => OK
difficult_words: 99.0 63.6247240618 156% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 10.7273730684 126% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.498013245 107% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.2008830022 125% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 88.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 26.5 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.