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 states that environmentalists in the US suggest that the government should create new, much stricter regulations for handling and storing coal ash, which is a material that contains small amounts of potentially harmful chemicals, while representatives of power companies argued that new regulations are unnecessary and might cause negative results.
However, the professor asserts that strict rules are necessary for the following reasons.
First, the author maintains that effective regulations already exist and take the regulations of requiring companies to use liner for example. However, the professor opposes that the regulation is not sufficient. She states that the old regulation of liner still lets coal ash components leaking and the harmful chemical has polluted the water.
Second, the author states that new regulations would make consumers concerned that recycled coal ash products are too dangerous and may stop buying those goods. Nevertheless, the professor argues that there is no need to worry about it. She takes Marqury for instance. She says that consumers didn't afraid of its recycling products and they didn't stop buying them.
Finally, the author asserts that strict new regulations would result in a significant increase cost for power companies. The professor agrees with the point but states that the cost is well-worthy. She explains that new regulations may cost the companies 50 billion dollars; however, the amount of money could be seen as only 1% increase in consumers' bill, and it is not a huge increase. Moreover, the cost is worthy because it can make the environment better and cleaner.
- Scientists are considering the possibility of sending humans to Mars in the coming decades. Although there have been successful manned missions to the Moon in the 1960s and 1970s, Mars is 150 times further away from Earth than the Moon is. Thus the projec 3
- 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 window 61
- 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 th 80
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?In the past, young people depended too much on their parents to make decisions for them; today young people are better able to make decisions about their own lives.Use specific reasons and examples to 60
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?Teachers were more appreciated and valued by society in the past than they are nowadays.Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer. 70
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 11, column 294, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
...y for instance. She says that consumers didnt afraid of its recycling products and th...
^^^^^
Line 11, column 342, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
...raid of its recycling products and they didnt stop buying them. Finally, the aut...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, however, if, may, moreover, nevertheless, second, so, still, well, while, for example, for instance
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.4613686534 96% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 5.04856512141 178% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 12.0772626932 132% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 22.412803532 120% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 13.0 30.3222958057 43% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1402.0 1373.03311258 102% => OK
No of words: 256.0 270.72406181 95% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.4765625 5.08290768461 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.0 4.04702891845 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.84391096728 2.5805825403 110% => OK
Unique words: 145.0 145.348785872 100% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.56640625 0.540411800872 105% => OK
syllable_count: 411.3 419.366225166 98% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 2.5761589404 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 79.2487656933 49.2860985944 161% => OK
Chars per sentence: 107.846153846 110.228320801 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.6923076923 21.698381199 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.23076923077 7.06452816374 131% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => 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: 0.19302894067 0.272083759551 71% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0579548238076 0.0996497079465 58% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0784311108185 0.0662205650399 118% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.100466960209 0.162205337803 62% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0793595811552 0.0443174109184 179% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.2 13.3589403974 106% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 53.8541721854 97% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.0289183223 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.5 12.2367328918 118% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.71 8.42419426049 103% => OK
difficult_words: 67.0 63.6247240618 105% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 10.7273730684 112% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => 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.