Cyril R’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Mobile source emissions

  Regarding mobile source emissions: the idea is to put the tax/trading on the fuel (based of course on it's carbon content). This should be effective, since most GhG emissions are from fossil fuel burning (the other emission sources would have to be included seperately) and a relatively small number of suppliers of fossil fuels is not difficult to regulate. This avoids the gargantuan task of measuring smokestacks etc. On Sen. Corker criticizes USCAP climate plan posted 10 months ago 7 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Tax vs Trading

  The issue of tax vs trading is complex, with both having their strenghts and weaknesses. However, overall efficiency and transparancy (simplicity) combined with the more secure investment climate a stable price brings, tend to favor the tax.

  However, the devil is in the details. A tax that is equitably and efficiently re-distributed (lower payroll taxes for example) and that is guaranteed with respect to price levels for a long time (at least 10 years in my mind), will be preferable both from an efficiency as well as equity viewpoint. This is what I support.

  Now, if the politicians set no guarantee on the current and future tax levels and in stead decide to constantly change the tax price, exempt large amounts of emissions (eg sectoral exclusion) and have no good/efficient revenue recycling, things will not be so sweet.

  I'm afraid that the trading system will be bubble-bust sensitive in practice, which is a real show stopper for me, but I understand there are other quantity based advantages to having a cap, and there are marginal cost advantages with trading systems. But the volatile price level that is inherent to trading systems is a disincentive for new alt e and efficiency and conservation as well; that's a no-no. IMHO, adding another price volatile market (emissions trading) on top of already price volatile fossil energy markets is a really unstrategical thing to do.On Sen. Corker criticizes USCAP climate plan posted 10 months ago 7 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Solar Potential

  Recalling from solar resource maps, the inland of Ecuador (eg around the capital Quito) and other areas (near the westernmost coast eg Paita and Talara for solar thermal with cheap ocean once through cooling) has really good solar resources, and very stable seasonal output due to being very close to the equator.

  Are you hearing me, Ecuador? Solarize!On Chevron's history of denial, delay, and defamation in the Ecuadorian Amazon posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 5 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Cost per kWh

  Keep in mind that coal provides (very roughly) 2 EWh of electricity each year into US grids.

  5,000,000,000 USD for 2,000,000,000,000 kWh = 0.0025 USD/kWh to clean up the ash. That's 0.25 cents, call it 0.2 - 0.3 cents/kWh as sensitivity proxy.

  Not very expensive at all. Of course there is the CO2 thing which is tricky (unknown macro economical costs). Olivine sequestration might be cheap enough at 1-2 cents/kWh. Further improving other pollution abatement equipment (scrubbers, active carbon filters etc) will likely add another cent at least. Mining impact is sometimes difficult to restore so is another problem for economical quantification.

  All things included, coal is at best rather expensive, at worst very expensive, but even then not prohibitively so IMHO. That said I wouldn't mind a moratorium for coal at all.On Stiffer regulation of coal ash would cost the industry billions posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 8 Responses