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 reading and lecture both discuss about new regulations for handling and storing ash coal which potentially contains harmful chemicals for the environment. The author belives that existing regulations are sufficient and there is no need for new ones, but the professor contrasts the author's oponion and belives that very strick rules should be implemented for handling coal ash by power plant comanies. Moreover he rebuts each of the reasons provided in the passage.
First, the author claims that effective rules already exist, but the lecturer rebuts this point and contends that these regulations are not sufficient. Furthermore, he elaborates that rules for using liner-special material to prevent coal ash components from leaking into soil are just in place for new ponds or landfill and they are not applied on old ponds or grounds that their liner material is damaged. So, this causes leackage of harmful chemicals to ground water and seriously harms the environment.
Second, despite the author's belief that use of strict regulations will discourage the recycling of coal ash into other products, the lecturer points out that these rules are being applied on other chemicals and had not affected their recycling. For example, there is very strict rules for handling mercury, but still it is being recycled successfully for more than 50 years and consumers are not afraid of using these recycled products. Therefore, use of these rules won't have any serouis effect of inclination towards recycling coal ash.
Third, although as the reading illustrates these new regulations will cost extra, however the professor belives that this extra cost is worth the cleaner environment. Additionally he states that this rules will cost around 15 billion dollars, which in itself seems very huge, but calculations shows that this amount sums up to just 1% increase in each household electricity costs, which is quite tolerable.
| 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 |
- Many scientists believe it would be possible to maintain a permanent human presence on Mars or the Moon. On the other hand, conditions on Venus are so extreme and inhospitable that maintaining a human presence there would be impossible. First, atmospheric 73
- The world’s forests are facing increasing pressure which, if left unchecked, will threaten the health of many industries, economies, nations, and lives. The development of an international fund to help developing countries implement useful conservation 86
- TPO 47 3
- Imagine that you are in a classroom or a meeting. The teacher or the meeting leader says something incorrect In your opinion, which of the following is the best thing to do?-Interrupt and correct the mistake right away 73
- TPO 37 Do you agree or disagree with the following statements? Because people are busy doing so many different things, they do very few things well. Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer. 73
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 407, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Moreover,
...dling coal ash by power plant comanies. Moreover he rebuts each of the reasons provided ...
^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 22, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
... the environment. Second, despite the authors belief that use of strict regulations w...
^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 168, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Additionally,
... cost is worth the cleaner environment. Additionally he states that this rules will cost aro...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, furthermore, however, moreover, second, so, still, therefore, third, for example
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 10.4613686534 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 7.30242825607 205% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 14.0 12.0772626932 116% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 22.412803532 129% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 25.0 30.3222958057 82% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1625.0 1373.03311258 118% => OK
No of words: 306.0 270.72406181 113% => OK
Chars per words: 5.31045751634 5.08290768461 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.18244613648 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.65946620147 2.5805825403 103% => OK
Unique words: 168.0 145.348785872 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.549019607843 0.540411800872 102% => OK
syllable_count: 485.1 419.366225166 116% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 4.0 8.23620309051 49% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.51434878587 264% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 11.0 13.0662251656 84% => 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: 27.0 21.2450331126 127% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 64.2676479927 49.2860985944 130% => OK
Chars per sentence: 147.727272727 110.228320801 134% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.8181818182 21.698381199 128% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.36363636364 7.06452816374 118% => 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: 3.0 4.27373068433 70% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.170497553589 0.272083759551 63% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0722309554585 0.0996497079465 72% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0720369792253 0.0662205650399 109% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.106500291511 0.162205337803 66% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0606225133574 0.0443174109184 137% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.5 13.3589403974 131% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 44.07 53.8541721854 82% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 11.0289183223 125% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.81 12.2367328918 113% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.85 8.42419426049 105% => OK
difficult_words: 75.0 63.6247240618 118% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 10.7273730684 107% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 10.498013245 122% => 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.