The material discusses new regulations that should be allocated for handling and storing coal ash. While the reading states that these new rules are unnecessary and might have detrimental results, the listening challenges this and mentions that definitely, new stricter rules should be addressed for handling and storing coal ash.
First, the author points out that there are effective rules already in place for handling and storing ash. On the other hand, the professor opposes this and says that the old regulations are not sufficient because they allow companies to use liners only when they build new landfills or ponds. The lecturer adds that companies do not use these liners for old ones. The speaker explains that chemicals leaked to water and contaminated it. As a result, the lecturer posits that new regulations should be created for coal disposes of both sides, new and old.
Second, the writer posits that these stricter rules could discourage the recycling of coal ash. On the contrary, the lecturer refutes this and mentions that stricter rules will not stop people from using coal ash recycling materials. The professor gives an example of mercury, which has stricter rules for handling and storing for years, but consumers do not have any concern about using their recycling stuff. The speaker adds that stricter rules will not stop people from buying the products.
Third, the reading states that this approach will be costly. Nevertheless, the listening contradicts this and contends that the result of these new regulations is well-worthy. The professor explains that the analysis found that the cost of the power could be fifteen billion dollars, but mathematically, the electric bills could increase by only one percent. The lecturer concludes that it is not too much to pay for having a clean environment.
The material discusses
new
regulations
that should
be allocated
for
handling
and
storing
coal ash. While the reading states that these
new
rules
are unnecessary and might have detrimental results, the listening challenges this and mentions that definitely,
new
stricter
rules
should
be addressed
for
handling
and
storing
coal ash.
First
, the author points out that there are effective
rules
already in place for
handling
and
storing
ash.
On the other hand
, the professor opposes this and says that the
old
regulations
are not sufficient
because
they
allow
companies
to
use
liners
only
when they build
new
landfills or ponds. The
lecturer
adds
that
companies
do not
use
these liners for
old
ones. The speaker
explains
that chemicals leaked to water and contaminated it.
As a result
, the
lecturer
posits that
new
regulations
should
be created
for coal disposes of both sides,
new
and
old
.
Second, the writer posits that these
stricter
rules
could discourage the recycling of coal ash.
On the contrary
, the
lecturer
refutes this and mentions that
stricter
rules
will not
stop
people
from using coal ash recycling materials. The professor gives an example of mercury, which has
stricter
rules
for
handling
and
storing
for years,
but
consumers do not have any concern about using their recycling stuff. The speaker
adds
that
stricter
rules
will not
stop
people
from buying the products.
Third, the reading states that this approach will be costly.
Nevertheless
, the listening contradicts this and contends that the result of these
new
regulations
is well-worthy. The professor
explains
that the analysis found that the cost of the power could be fifteen billion dollars,
but
mathematically
, the electric bills could increase by
only
one percent. The
lecturer
concludes that it is not too much to pay for having a clean environment.