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 are about the regulation on the coal ash. In the reading, the opposing view against the more intensive ordinance on the matter proposed. The lecturer is of the opinion that these interpretations are faulty.
Firstly, in the passage, it is stated ordinance that companies must utilize in the new landfills and ponds. Therefore, brand-new regulation is unnecessary because the damage is reduced thanks to the liner which is being utilized by the every organizations which produce the ash. This specific argument is challenged by the lecturer. She states that there are no requirement of employing liner on the outdated landfills, where presence of the ash may be deleterious because it will permeate to the ground water, and contaminate the drinking water of the people. Moreover, the lecturer states that the further rule associated with the obselete sites must be regulated in order to prevent the leakage of the toxic materials.
Secondly, the author mentions that the ordinance may discourage the prevailing regulations because companies utilize the ash to produce building material will consider the material as the detrimental. However, the lecturer claims that recycling process of the mercury did not diminish when the ordinance of related to the mercury was enacted. Likewise, she mentions that the the recycling of the ash will not be reduced.
Finally, in the article, it is stated that the power company will undergo the additional cost in order to follow the regulation, which may occassion the cost increase of the electricity. Thereby, folks will experience the further charge of electricity. The lecturer, nonetheless, claims that the benefit will preponderate the expenditure of the rule. Moreover, even though the amount of money spent on the regulation will be fifty billion dollars, the individual consumer of the electricity will go through the one percent of the improvement on the expenditure.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 363, Rule ID: THERE_RE_MANY[3]
Message: Possible agreement error. Did you mean 'requirements'?
Suggestion: requirements
... lecturer. She states that there are no requirement of employing liner on the outdated land...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 372, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: the
...as enacted. Likewise, she mentions that the the recycling of the ash will not be reduce...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 372, Rule ID: DT_DT[1]
Message: Maybe you need to remove one determiner so that only 'the' or 'the' is left.
Suggestion: the; the
...as enacted. Likewise, she mentions that the the recycling of the ash will not be reduce...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, firstly, however, if, likewise, may, moreover, nonetheless, second, secondly, so, therefore
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 10.4613686534 153% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 5.04856512141 257% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 3.0 7.30242825607 41% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 14.0 12.0772626932 116% => OK
Pronoun: 16.0 22.412803532 71% => OK
Preposition: 37.0 30.3222958057 122% => 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: 1641.0 1373.03311258 120% => OK
No of words: 307.0 270.72406181 113% => OK
Chars per words: 5.34527687296 5.08290768461 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.18585898806 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.91643564585 2.5805825403 113% => OK
Unique words: 158.0 145.348785872 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.514657980456 0.540411800872 95% => OK
syllable_count: 527.4 419.366225166 126% => 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: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 57.8693547763 49.2860985944 117% => OK
Chars per sentence: 109.4 110.228320801 99% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.4666666667 21.698381199 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.13333333333 7.06452816374 101% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.27373068433 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.135265169129 0.272083759551 50% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0442622723343 0.0996497079465 44% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0477941461578 0.0662205650399 72% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0803216670741 0.162205337803 50% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0191682686788 0.0443174109184 43% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.0 13.3589403974 105% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 42.72 53.8541721854 79% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 11.0289183223 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.75 12.2367328918 112% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.26 8.42419426049 110% => OK
difficult_words: 90.0 63.6247240618 141% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 10.7273730684 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.2008830022 125% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 20.0 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.