Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Educate yourself a little. The SOx NOx trading system run by the EPA is their most cost effective environmental program. Industry generates credits by voluntarily reducing emissions and then selling those credits to someone who needs them. It's a program proposed by conservative economists who recommended it as a better system than command and control emissions regulation. The CO2 credit trading program would work the same way.
Allowing a 100% write-off of the cost of installing and maintaining emissions-reduction technology, in tandem with the accompanying PR benefits, would've worked much better.
But it wouldn't have transferred wealth away from the private sector...
No it wouldn't becsue those reductions in emissions are not as simple as say switching to lower sulfur coal.
It doesn't matter, you allow the market to work. BTW SOx and NOx reduction is a lot more complex than fuel switching. I don't really expect you to understand. There are these things called scrubbers.
Allowing a 100% write-off of the cost of installing and maintaining emissions-reduction technology, in tandem with the accompanying PR benefits, would've worked much better.
But it wouldn't have transferred wealth away from the private sector...
There is zero reason to believe a carbon trading program wouldn't perform as well as the SOx and NOx program. Many of the participants will be the same firms.
Thanks for making my point. "Many of the participants will be the same."
Yes, because when creating a scheme, using the same participants is easier than finding new ones and when holding all the money close, the fewer the new participants the better.
It doesn't matter, you allow the market to work. BTW SOx and NOx reduction is a lot more complex than fuel switching. I don't really expect you to understand. There are these things called scrubbers.
Coal mined from the Powder River Basin which now provides the largest percentage of coal from any area is low sulfur. Because of the low sulfur and it's easier to mine it's seen an exponential increase in use despite the fact it's a lower BTU coal than eastern coals. You don't have to remove as much sulfur with scrubbers if it doesn't exist to begin with. The use of this coal was so affective at reducing sulfur emissions you could literally have trains going west loaded with the higher BTU eastern coal passing trains going east with lower sulfur Powder River Basin coal so they could mix them.
You keep up with the insults if you wish because I can care less but you only make yourself look foolish especially when you are so completely wrong.
Last edited by thecoalman; 12-11-2014 at 08:24 PM..
Thanks for making my point. "Many of the participants will be the same."
Yes, because when creating a scheme, using the same participants is easier than finding new ones and when holding all the money close, the fewer the new participants the better.
Peter/Paul principle. Guess who peter represents?
The EPA emissions trading program has not had any major scandals. You obviously just don't understand the process. Perhaps you should read more and post less.
Coal mined from the Powder River Basin which now provides the largest percentage of coal from any area is low sulfur. Because of the low sulfur and it's easier to mine it's seen an exponential increase in use despite the fact it's a lower BTU coal than eastern coals. You don't have to remove as much sulfur with scrubbers if it doesn't exist to begin with. The use of this coal was so affective at reducing sulfur emissions you could literally have trains going west loaded with the higher BTU eastern coal passing trains going east with lower sulfur Powder River Basin coal so they could mix them.
You keep up with the insults if you wish because I can care less but you only make yourself look foolish especially when you are so completely wrong.
Why don't you actually check and see how much electricity will come from un-scrubbed coal-fired plants post implementation of the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule. BTW virtually all coal has sulfur. If you were better informed, you wouldn't feel so insulted.
Last edited by DCforever; 12-12-2014 at 06:51 AM..
Why don't you actually check and see how much electricity will come from un-scrubbed coal-fired plants...
The post I originally applied too was about credits, yes? What is the goal of the credits? To provide financial incentive to reduce sulfur emissions beyond what the limits are so you can get a credit, yes?
You can significantly reduce your emissions simply by using a product with lower sulfur. This one of the reasons this system worked well, it was partly attainable by simply switching the source of the combustion product.
Accelerated tax write-off and even tax free debt has been used for years with pollution control equipment.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
