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 paragraph claims that adding new regulation on coal ash, generated by burning coal, would lead to poor results. The delegates of power companies proposes several points that contradicts those of the professor.
Firstly, the article suggests that the regulation regarding coal ash have already existed. They use the example that a law requires companies to use liner which is a material preventing coal ash from leaking into the soil. And the involved companies have to use liner in every landfill they build. Nevertheless, the lecture argues that the liner is not effective and would be used only in new plants built.
Secondly, the paragraph presumes that enacting rigid laws would discourage the recycling of coal ash. The presented instance is that consumers would stop buying the products because they would concerned the danger of it that adapting the recycling coal ash. Still, the professor argues that harmful ingredient would leak into drinking water source and have adverse impact on people's health. She also gives an example that the friendly response of people toward the another poison material , so she thinks that people would not be afraid of the implementation of the rule.
Finally, the strict law would cause the tremendous cost in disposal and handling process for the power companies. Therefore, the fee of the electricity would increase in response to the cost. On the other hand, the professor cedes to the increasing cost of the regulation. But, she suggests that the extra electricity cost would be only one percent increased, even the whole price of the cost seems high.
In conclusion, the representatives of the power companies are opposed to enact the new regulations by listing three points, while the professor puts the counterparts forward to counter them.
| 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 |
- Reducing Pollution 83
- Creative artist should always be given the freedom to express their own ideas in words pictures music or film in whichever way they wish There should be no government restrictions on what they do To what extent do you agree or disagree with this op 80
- In an effort to bring new jobs to Dillton and stimulate the city s flagging economy Dillton s city council voted last year to lower the city s corporate tax rate by 15 percent at the same time the city began offering generous relocation grants to any comp 59
- Governments should not fund any science research who consequences are unclear 83
- College students should be encouraged to pursue subjects that interest them rather than the courses that seem most likely to lead to jobs. 50
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 193, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'would' requires the base form of the verb: 'concern'
Suggestion: concern
... buying the products because they would concerned the danger of it that adapting the recy...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 488, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
...eople toward the another poison material , so she thinks that people would not be ...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, firstly, nevertheless, regarding, second, secondly, so, still, therefore, while, in conclusion, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 10.4613686534 67% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 5.04856512141 198% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 7.30242825607 55% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 22.412803532 94% => OK
Preposition: 33.0 30.3222958057 109% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1508.0 1373.03311258 110% => OK
No of words: 290.0 270.72406181 107% => OK
Chars per words: 5.2 5.08290768461 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.12666770723 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.67137431206 2.5805825403 104% => OK
Unique words: 160.0 145.348785872 110% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.551724137931 0.540411800872 102% => OK
syllable_count: 453.6 419.366225166 108% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 34.2918195622 49.2860985944 70% => OK
Chars per sentence: 100.533333333 110.228320801 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.3333333333 21.698381199 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.33333333333 7.06452816374 132% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 4.45695364238 179% => 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: 0.144284923144 0.272083759551 53% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.04973627432 0.0996497079465 50% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0433426746906 0.0662205650399 65% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0785580109639 0.162205337803 48% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0490450200982 0.0443174109184 111% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.7 13.3589403974 95% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 53.8541721854 97% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.0289183223 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.88 12.2367328918 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.44 8.42419426049 100% => OK
difficult_words: 71.0 63.6247240618 112% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.2008830022 116% => 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.