The power plants that use coal as their fuel to produce electricity would dispose of an

The power plants that use coal as their fuel to produce electricity would dispose of an amount of dangerous chemicals called ash coal. The article argues power companies believe the current rules are adequate to preserve and manage the ash and new rules are unnecessary, and provides three chief reasons for it. On the contrary, the lecturer cites an array of motives and examples to reject the points in the reading. First, the article explains there are enough rules already. For instance companies are obliged to use special liners to prevent leakage of ash to the soil. Conversely, the professor claims these requirements are not adequate; due to the fact, it is only for new ponds and lands that ash store there. On the other hand, the ashes could leak from the old ponds and pollute the water. Second, the article states new rule legislation persuades people to avoid using recycled material, which builds from the ash coal. For example, ash coal is used to create bricks and concretes. As a result, new rules convince people that the products are perilous. In contrast, the professor discusses new regulations that will not affect the popularity of recycled ashes products. For instance, there are firm rules for mercury. These rules only awaring people about the danger of mercury. Finally, the writer suggests if new regulations increase the cost of electricity rise too; consequently, citizens will confront that. On the contrary, the professor declares new regulations increase the bills of citizens only one percent, and this cost is fair for saving the environment. In conclusion, the article mentions an array of reasons to show new rules are not helpful to manage the ash coal that is produced by power companies; however, the lecturer proposes numerous reasons and examples to oppose the reasons in the writing.