Resources for the Future: Billions could be spent to reduce U.S. emissions by 1.5%

Okay, it didn’t say “billions”…

…but only because RFF must have been too embarrassed to consider the cost of reducing greenhouse gas emissions from coal-fired plants.

Greenwire reports,

… Resources For the Future (RFF) maintains coal-fired electric generation could still shave off up to 5 percent of its heat-trapping emissions by upgrading turbines, heat transfer systems and auxiliary power use across the fleet — cutting U.S. total emissions by 1.5 percent in the process…

Click here for the RFF report.

But what would be the point of the expense which would certainly be in the billions of dollars?

Read “China to be all-time emissions leader by 2035.”

4 thoughts on “Resources for the Future: Billions could be spent to reduce U.S. emissions by 1.5%”

  1. With about 2/3 of the worlds population living within the flood zone if the worst of climate change occurs, wonder how much it will cost to move them all?

  2. How many power plants does RFF operate? How many have they designed or constructed? I don’t recall “tax” being a consideration in any thermodynamics text book I ever used. As virtually any engineer will tell you, you aren’t going to make any “rapid” improvement in efficiency of a Rankine Cycle power plant without major capital invested. Even then the improvement is only by a small increment. A 5% improvement could only be made on a plant that shouldn’t have been running in the first place.

    Yet another example of “political science” trying to pass itself off as real science. Why can’t they realize that they can’t overcome the laws of nature with a foolish white paper and ideology?

Comments are closed.