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 article is about the attitude of the environmentalits and representatives of power companies toward the coal ash which is the power plants’ waste. It is stated that the environmentalists believes that the United States government should create stricter regulations for handling coal ash while power plant representatives think the existing regulations are sufficeint. However, the lecturer’s opinion is that the existing regulations are not enough and new ones should be created.
First, the author points out that effective regulations such as using liner already exists. It is mentioned that whenever a new pond or landfill is constructed , the company must use liner. This point is challenged by the lecturer. She says that the existing regulations don’t suffice. She argues that the liners are utilized only in the newly built ponds and landfills and old ones are not obliged to use liners.
Secondly,the author contends that strict rules may raise concerns on exploiting recycled coal ash into other materials. The lecturer rebuts this argument. She suggests that creating new obligations doesn’t affect the recycling industry. She elaborates on this by mentioning that although there exists strict obligations on handling Mercury which is a hazardous material, it is still used in other industries without any concerns.
Finally, the author states that creating stricter regulations will increase the handling costs for the power companies. The article establishes that the increase in the costs will results in a much more expensive electricity bills. The lecturer, on the other hand, posits that despite the extra costs which is proposed to the companies, the electricity bills will get a bit expensive which worths helping the environment.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 160, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
...er a new pond or landfill is constructed , the company must use liner. This point ...
^^
Line 5, column 9, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , the
... not obliged to use liners. Secondly,the author contends that strict rules may r...
^^^^
Line 5, column 345, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...s strict obligations on handling Mercury which is a hazardous material, it is sti...
^^
Line 7, column 181, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'will' requires the base form of the verb: 'result'
Suggestion: result
...hes that the increase in the costs will results in a much more expensive electricity bi...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, however, may, second, secondly, still, while, such as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 10.4613686534 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 12.0772626932 141% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 22.412803532 103% => OK
Preposition: 20.0 30.3222958057 66% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 5.01324503311 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1512.0 1373.03311258 110% => OK
No of words: 271.0 270.72406181 100% => OK
Chars per words: 5.57933579336 5.08290768461 110% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.05734859645 4.04702891845 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.08339080809 2.5805825403 119% => OK
Unique words: 153.0 145.348785872 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.564575645756 0.540411800872 104% => OK
syllable_count: 458.1 419.366225166 109% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 3.25607064018 246% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 52.4982116098 49.2860985944 107% => OK
Chars per sentence: 100.8 110.228320801 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.0666666667 21.698381199 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.2 7.06452816374 88% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 4.19205298013 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => 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: 0.12321737659 0.272083759551 45% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.038635911443 0.0996497079465 39% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0631028198836 0.0662205650399 95% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.072946835135 0.162205337803 45% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0763435700433 0.0443174109184 172% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.9 13.3589403974 104% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 44.75 53.8541721854 83% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 11.0289183223 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.79 12.2367328918 121% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.07 8.42419426049 108% => OK
difficult_words: 78.0 63.6247240618 123% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 10.7273730684 112% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => 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.