Comments on: Policing Carbon Corruption

By: RogerCaiazza

RogerCaiazza — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 23:42:08 +0000

I also am an advocate for a carbon tax based on measurements at the mine, the refinery and the natural gas transmission system. For the record, the estimates of CO2 from those measurements are, without question, more accurate than trying to measure/estimate them at the point of combustion. I base that statement on the last 15 years of my career which has been largely devoted to measuring and reporting SO2 for the acid rain program and NOX for the NOX Budget program using continuous emissions monitoring systems on electric generating unit stacks.

Although we can measure the concentration of SO2, NOX, and CO2 accurately the problem is that in order to calculate the mass emitted, you have to know the volume of the exhaust gas. In order to do that all the coal-fired electric generating units in the acid rain program measure the stack velocity. While the theory is fine there are assumptions that the flow is laminar and consistent across the stack. Those assumptions just don’t work in the real world so the accuracy is all right but there are acknowledged adjustment factors that bias the results high.

Someday someone is going to calculate the differences and realize that there is a quick way to get a significant reduction in emissions – just change the accepted methodology for CO2 reporting based on stack measurements to CO2 based on fuel quantities. It will be just about as real as some of the offsets proposed.

By: Mark Bahner

Mark Bahner — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 22:00:31 +0000

“While I share your preference for a carbon tax, I don’t see that it makes a big difference in this issue. Wouldn’t the amount owed be based on emissions, and wouldn’t we generally be depending on the emitting firm to tell us what they are emitting? Or do you expect the government to physically place monitors on all sites that only they control?”

The generally accepted thought is that a carbon tax on coal would be at the mine; it wouldn’t be assessed at the point of combustion. (It’s expected that the mines would then pass that cost on to customers.)

And natural gas and gasoline don’t need CO2 emissions testing; the amount of CO2 emitted is well-established from the chemical composition. So as long as one knows how much natural gas or gasoline is burned, one can calculate the CO2 emissions; one doesn’t need to measure them.

By: Maurice Garoutte

Maurice Garoutte — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 18:01:11 +0000

Wouldn’t a carbon tax be easier? Easier to rort? No.
If you’re wont to rort then you want cap and trade.

What does your congressman want?

By: dean

dean — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 17:08:37 +0000

While I share your preference for a carbon tax, I don’t see that it makes a big difference in this issue. Wouldn’t the amount owed be based on emissions, and wouldn’t we generally be depending on the emitting firm to tell us what they are emitting? Or do you expect the government to physically place monitors on all sites that only they control?