TPO 41 integrated

Both the reading and the lecture talk about whether or not the government should create new strict regulations for storing and handling coal ash. The reading presents some reasons indicating that such new rules are not necessary. The professor, nonetheless, casts doubts on this claim by bringing up three reasons to refuse the author's view.

Firstly, the author alleges that environmental regulations already exist since companies must uses liners in their new ponds and landfills when they build them. Conversely, the author rejects this view and highlights that the companies build lines in new pods and landfills, and their old pods and landfills do not have such lines. Therefore, old pods and landfills seep polluted materials to the water sources, causing such waters to contaminate. As a result, strict rules should be created for old pods and landfills.

Secondly, the reading holds the view that since creating strict regulations may cause companies to have no motivation for recycling the coal ash, consumers may think such recycled products are too dangerous and prevent to buy them. In contrast, the professor refuses this viewpoint, stating that mercury, one of the harmful substances, has been recycled for 20 years, and costumers have adopted such recycled substances. Similarly, customers will adopt to use the substances from the recycled coal ash in the future. Thus, passing new rules for handling and disposal the coal ash is critical.

Finally, the author points out that increasing costs of handling and storing the coal ash for power companies will happen because of strict new rules. Hence, public people do not like these high costs. The lecturer, however, opposes this issue due to the fact that such high expenses are well-worthy costs. Since 50 percent of the costs are for a company, while one percent of the costs are for one house, it is not a high expense. So, imposing the new regulation will not cause high costs for the general publics' electricity.