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 and lecture argue about the necessity if new rstrict regulation about waste product of power plant which burn coal. Their waste is coal ash and the companies represantatives don't think that new regulation would be installed. However, the lecturer opposes this idea and strongly suggests that new regulation should be rolled and rejects the author's reassons.
First, the article states that regulation already exist and brings a liner- special material as an ezxample. In contrast, the professor refutes this by explining that old roles and regulations are not sufficient. She adds that these regulation are only for new line of production or building new pool, but they don't say anyhting about the old pool. Old pool may be need new liner, otherwise they will leak poisnous materials. It will contaminated the water resources.
Second, the author's concern about reducing the recycling of coal ash because of restriction of the new regulation, rejected by the professor reason. The porfessor believes that new regualtion would be adoppted by resysling companies. She says it has happened for other hazardous chemical such as Mercury. She believes new handeling and storing regulatios won't add more concens for companies.
Thirtd, the author mentions that restricted regulation will increase cost of handelling and storing of waste. In contrast the lecturer says that economical analysis show that it will absolutly worth. She compares the impacts of these new restriction on environment and the cost of money. She adds by decreasing electricity consumption . she says that 15 billion dollars is a huge amount of money but if you do math it is equal to one percent electricity usage cost which well worth.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 187, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...l ash and the companies represantatives dont think that new regulation would be inst...
^^^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...d and rejects the authors reassons. First, the article states that regulatio...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 317, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...oduction or building new pool, but they dont say anyhting about the old pool. Old po...
^^^^
Line 3, column 440, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'will' requires the base form of the verb: 'contaminate'
Suggestion: contaminate
...y will leak poisnous materials. It will contaminated the water resources. Second, ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...l contaminated the water resources. Second, the authors concern about reduci...
^^^^^^
Line 6, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... wont add more concens for companies. Thirtd, the author mentions that re...
^^^^^^
Line 7, column 119, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[2]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: contrast,
... of handelling and storing of waste. In contrast the lecturer says that economical analy...
^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 151, Rule ID: ECONOMICAL_ECONOMIC[1]
Message: Did you mean 'economic' (=connected with economy)?
Suggestion: economic
...ste. In contrast the lecturer says that economical analysis show that it will absolutly wo...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 340, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Don't put a space before the full stop
Suggestion: .
...ds by decreasing electricity consumption . she says that 15 billion dollars is a h...
^^
Line 7, column 343, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: She
...by decreasing electricity consumption . she says that 15 billion dollars is a huge ...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, may, second, so, well, in contrast, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 10.4613686534 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 5.04856512141 178% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 7.30242825607 164% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 28.0 22.412803532 125% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 22.0 30.3222958057 73% => 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: 1449.0 1373.03311258 106% => OK
No of words: 275.0 270.72406181 102% => OK
Chars per words: 5.26909090909 5.08290768461 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.07223819929 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.77882016779 2.5805825403 108% => OK
Unique words: 163.0 145.348785872 112% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.592727272727 0.540411800872 110% => OK
syllable_count: 437.4 419.366225166 104% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 3.25607064018 246% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 21.2450331126 75% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 30.6085905123 49.2860985944 62% => OK
Chars per sentence: 85.2352941176 110.228320801 77% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.1764705882 21.698381199 75% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.0 7.06452816374 57% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 10.0 4.19205298013 239% => Less language errors wanted.
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.27373068433 164% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.152961020546 0.272083759551 56% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0480000338839 0.0996497079465 48% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0623782891532 0.0662205650399 94% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0953719202895 0.162205337803 59% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0635647926645 0.0443174109184 143% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.5 13.3589403974 86% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 55.24 53.8541721854 103% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 11.0289183223 86% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.99 12.2367328918 106% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.85 8.42419426049 105% => OK
difficult_words: 77.0 63.6247240618 121% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.7273730684 79% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.498013245 80% => 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.