Passage
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.
Lecture Audio
Student response
The reading and the lecture are both about strict regulations for handling and storing coal ash. While the author claims that representatives of power companies believe that these regulations are unnecessary and might have negative consequences, the lecturer refutes the claims mentioned in the reading. His position is that these strict regulations should be there.
To begin with, the author states that these rules already exist. For example, companies use liners, which are a special material to prevent coal ash components from leaking into the soil, in every new pond or landfill they build. However, the lecturer argues that the lines that are used are insufficient. They are used only when companies build new ponds or landfills, but the older ones don't use them. He goes on to say that coal ash components leak from these sites into the ground and contaminate drinking water. So, regulation will ensure that these lines are used at all, in new and old landfills.
Furthermore, the reading mentions that these regulations may discourage consumers from using recycled coal ash products because they may think that they the products are dangerous. This point is challenged by the professor. He points out that creating strict rules doesn't necessarily mean that consumers will stop buying recycled products. He gives an example of mercury, which is a dangerous material. He states that despite strict regulations, mercury is has been successfully recycled, and consumers have few concerns about it???. So, they will not be afraid of buying recycled coal ash products.
Finally, the reading states that the cost of electricity will increase, which would not be welcomed by the public. On the other hand, the lecturer states that the lecturer concedes this point,yet she asserts that the result of these rules is well worth it. Also, he states that the average consumer's cost will increase by one percent, which is a small price for having a clean environment.
Sample response 1
The article presents the view of power company representatives that stricter regulations for handling and storing coal ash are unnecessary and could have negative consequences. The professor disagrees with this view, and here are their points of disagreement:
First, the power companies argue that effective environmental regulations already exist, such as the requirement to use liners that prevent coal ash components from leaking into the soil and contaminating the surrounding environment. The professor maintains that these rules are not strict enough, as they apply only to new landfills and ponds. Stricter regulations would require older ponds and landfills to also be equipped with liners, as these old sites have been the source of contamination.
Second, the power companies maintain that stricter regulations may discourage consumers from purchasing recycled coal ash products because they may think that the products are dangerous. The professor challenges this point, asserting that stricter rules do not necessarily mean that consumers will stop buying recycled products. As an example, she cites the case of mercury, which is also a dangerous material. Despite strict regulations, mercury is successfully recycled, and consumers have few concerns about using recycled mercury products. The professor argues that the same should be true of recycled coal ash products.
Finally, the power companies state that the cost of electricity will increase, which would not be welcomed by the public. The professor concedes that this is a possibility, but she maintains that the actual increase would be just 1 percent, which is a small price to pay for a clean environment.
Sample response 2
The article revolves around a contentious issue, with power companies advocating for the idea that stricter regulations on coal ash handling and storage are unnecessary, and possibly detrimental. In stark contrast, the professor vehemently disagrees with this perspective, citing several key points of contention.
First and foremost, the power companies contend that existing environmental regulations, including the requirement for using liners to prevent coal ash components from contaminating the environment, are sufficient. However, the professor asserts that these rules are inadequate, primarily because they apply exclusively to new landfills and ponds. She argues that stricter regulations should encompass older sites, which have been notorious sources of contamination.
Additionally, power companies argue that stringent regulations could discourage consumers from purchasing recycled coal ash products, as they might perceive them as hazardous. The professor rebuts this claim by asserting that stricter rules do not necessarily deter consumers. To support her argument, she draws a parallel with mercury, another dangerous substance. Despite stringent regulations, recycled mercury products are widely accepted, demonstrating that consumer trust can persist in the face of stricter rules.
Lastly, power companies raise concerns about the potential increase in electricity costs, which could negatively impact the public. The professor acknowledges this possibility but underscores that the actual increase is a mere 1 percent. She contends that this is a small price to pay for the benefits of a cleaner environment.