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.
Now listen to part of a lecture on the topic you just read about.
There should definitely be stricter rules adopted for handling and disposing of coal ash.
First, the regulations we have now, for example those that require companies to use liner, are not really sufficient. Under the current regulations, liner has to be used only when a company builds a new landfill or a new pond. But companies are not required to add liner to old ponds and landfills. Yet several of those older disposal sites have caused significant damage—for example, the harmful chemicals from coal ash leaked into groundwater and contaminated drinking water. We absolutely need stricter new regulations that will prevent environmental damage at all coal ash disposal sites—the new sites as well as the old ones.
Second, stricter rules for handling coal ash won't necessarily mean that consumers will stop using recycled coal ash products. Let's look at how people responded to strict regulations for other dangerous materials. Take mercury, for example.
Mercury is a fairly hazardous material, and it's been subject to very strict handling and storage rules for a long time. Yet despite those rules, it's been successfully and safely recycled for over 50 years and consumers have had very few concerns about it! So it's unlikely that consumers will become afraid to buy recycled coal ash products if stricter regulations are adopted.
Third, it's true that the cost of coal ash storage and handling will increase. But in this case, the result is well worth the extra cost. According to analysts, the cost to the power companies of implementing these rules would be about $15 billion. That sounds like a lot, but when you actually do the math, it would increase the average consumer's household electricity bill by only about one percent! That's not a big price to pay for having a cleaner environment.
Summarize the points made in the lecture, being sure to explain how they challenge the specific arguments presented in the reading passage.
The author in the reading part holds that new regulations for handling and storing coal ash are not necessarily beneficial, while the lecturer in the lecture expresses an opposite opinion.
To begin with, the author claims that there already exist regulations on the dispose of coal ash, which require companies to use liner in new ponds and landfills. However, the lecturer refutes that existing regulations prohibit companies to use liner in old ponds or landfills, thus causing danger. To be specific, harmful coal ash components would leak into ground water, leading to drink water being contaminated. Therefore, it is of significance that the government impose new strict regulations on both new and old ponds and landfills.
Moreover, the author believes that strict rules for recycling coal ash may make customers reluctant to buy the recycled products. On the contrary, the lecturer rebuts with regards to the recycle of similar dangerous material named mercury. As there are rules about the reuse of mercury for more than 50 years, there are few concerns about its danger. Hence, stricter rules about recycling coal ash may not discourage customers from buying the recycled products.
Finally, the author puts forward that regulations will result in a rise of the cost of power companies, leading to the higher electricity bill of customers. Instead, the leacturer retorts that actually it is well worth the costs of power companies in light of the fact that while the costs of companies rise 15 billion dollar, customers only rise one percent of electricty bills on average. In a word, it is significant of the government to impose stricter regulations on power companies concerning economical reasons.
- 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 80
- 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 80
- 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 80
- It is better to work for business owned by someone you do not know than work for a business owned by your family 73
- TPO 44 Integrated Writing 80
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 74, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...that there already exist regulations on the dispose of coal ash, which require companies to...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 266, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...named mercury. As there are rules about the reuse of mercury for more than 50 years, ther...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 500, Rule ID: ECONOMICAL_ECONOMIC[1]
Message: Did you mean 'economic' (=connected with economy)?
Suggestion: economic
...gulations on power companies concerning economical reasons.
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, finally, hence, however, if, may, moreover, so, therefore, thus, well, while, on the contrary, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 10.4613686534 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 12.0772626932 75% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 12.0 22.412803532 54% => OK
Preposition: 42.0 30.3222958057 139% => 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: 1447.0 1373.03311258 105% => OK
No of words: 275.0 270.72406181 102% => OK
Chars per words: 5.26181818182 5.08290768461 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.07223819929 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.74683890444 2.5805825403 106% => OK
Unique words: 150.0 145.348785872 103% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.545454545455 0.540411800872 101% => OK
syllable_count: 444.6 419.366225166 106% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 21.2450331126 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 36.0636012252 49.2860985944 73% => OK
Chars per sentence: 120.583333333 110.228320801 109% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.9166666667 21.698381199 106% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.25 7.06452816374 145% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 4.45695364238 179% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.27373068433 47% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.145931818639 0.272083759551 54% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.056616869637 0.0996497079465 57% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0465479996562 0.0662205650399 70% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0790545424347 0.162205337803 49% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0326135859626 0.0443174109184 74% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.8 13.3589403974 111% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 53.8541721854 91% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 11.0289183223 108% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.52 12.2367328918 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.75 8.42419426049 104% => OK
difficult_words: 70.0 63.6247240618 110% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 10.7273730684 107% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.498013245 103% => 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.