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 passage and the lecture mainly discuss on suggesting new regulations for storing and handling coal ash, which is produced by burning coal in power plants and contains some allegedly harmful substances. In this regard, the passage states that although environmentalists insist on adopting stricter regulations for handling these harmful chemicals, representatives of power plants oppose that these regulations not only are dispensable but also might lead to unwanted results. Three supportive reasons that companies have adduced are elaborated upon in the passage. The lecturer, on the other hand, categorically refutes all the three aforementioned episodes of argument. She is of the opinion that much stricter rules must be created in order to store and handle these materials properly.
To begin with, the author posits that some effective rules have already been adopted. An example is given, noting that an important regulation requires the use of liner by companies in order to prevent soil and environment from contamination due to leakage of coal ash components. Nevertheless, this specific argument is challenged by the lecturer, for which she mentions that this regulation is only applicable when a new disposal pond or landfill is built, whereas the older ponds already account for several significant damages that are being inflicted on the environment. As an example, the leakage of harmful chemicals has resulted in the contamination of drinking water. Hence, regulations which apply to both new and old disposal sites need to be implemented.
Second, the passage suggests that creating new strict rules for this matter might even discourage the consumers who used to buy the products of recycled coal ash. The lecturer, on the contrary, casts doubt on this argument by asserting that enacting stricter rules does not necessarily translate into people surmising that such products are dangerous. For instance, she mentions that a number of stricter rules have been adopted for handling Mercury, which is a fairly hazardous material. Notwithstanding the awareness of people about the associated risks, it is acknowledged that this material is safely recycled. Therefore, people are no more afraid of utilizing the recycled products of Mercury.
Eventually, the reading argues that the above mentioned strict regulations would increase the costs of disposal and handling in power plants probably up to ten times, which might force the companies to increase the electricity bill and cause disappointment among society. On the other hand, the lecturer believes that even though the costs will be increased, a clean and safe environment is worth the extra costs. She notes that if, for instance, the costs for the power companies increase to about 15 billion dollars, the household electricity bill will probably increase by about only 1 percent, which is undoubtedly not a significant amount.
In sum, all the three reasons mentioned in the reading are effectively challenged by the lecturer.
| 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 |
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement A teacher s ability to relate well with students is more important than excellent knowledge of the subject being taught 70
- technology has made children less creative than they were in the past 78
- Should a city try to preserve its old, historic buildings or destroy them and replace them with modern buildings? Use specific reasons and examples to support your opinion. 81
- Do you agree or disagree If people have the opportunity to get a secure job they should take it right away rather than wait for a job that would be more satisfying 88
- TPO- test9- technology has made children less creative than they were in the past 71
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, hence, if, nevertheless, second, so, therefore, whereas, for instance, on the contrary, to begin with, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 10.4613686534 220% => Less to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 5.04856512141 158% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 7.30242825607 151% => OK
Relative clauses : 24.0 12.0772626932 199% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 22.412803532 134% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 56.0 30.3222958057 185% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 5.01324503311 259% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2542.0 1373.03311258 185% => OK
No of words: 468.0 270.72406181 173% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.43162393162 5.08290768461 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.65116196802 4.04702891845 115% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.94956942989 2.5805825403 114% => OK
Unique words: 238.0 145.348785872 164% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.508547008547 0.540411800872 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 792.0 419.366225166 189% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.23620309051 158% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 2.5761589404 233% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 13.0662251656 145% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 21.2450331126 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 67.9698075387 49.2860985944 138% => OK
Chars per sentence: 133.789473684 110.228320801 121% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.6315789474 21.698381199 114% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.89473684211 7.06452816374 98% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 4.33554083885 231% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => 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: 0.1798567755 0.272083759551 66% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0510043141826 0.0996497079465 51% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0601699004927 0.0662205650399 91% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0844671096486 0.162205337803 52% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0616003241754 0.0443174109184 139% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.5 13.3589403974 124% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 38.66 53.8541721854 72% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 11.0289183223 125% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.51 12.2367328918 119% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.21 8.42419426049 109% => OK
difficult_words: 130.0 63.6247240618 204% => Less difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 15.5 10.7273730684 144% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.498013245 110% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
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.