Comment on Quick, J.C. 2014. Carbon dioxide emission tallies for 210 U.S. coal-fired power plants: A comparison of two accounting methods. <i>J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc.</i> 64: 73–79

Gurney, K. R.; Haung, Jianhuang; Coltin, K.

doi:10.1080/10962247.2014.954965

Cited by 6 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Since on the power plant there is no measure to measure the methane gas emitted, we prefer to use the characterization factors as 20.8 to find the estimate of methane. It means that when considered 1kg of methane and 1kg of carbon dioxide, the result of GWP is equivalent to 20.8kg of carbon dioxide denoted as CO2 equivalent [5]. The impacts considered in our study are The global warming, Acidification, Eutrophication and Solid waste or particulate matter (ash).…”

Section: Life Cycle Assessment Of Electricity Generation From Peatmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Life Cycle Assessment Approach to the Electricity Generation from Gishoma Peat Power Plant

2018

IJEE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Electricity is most often generated at a power plant by electromechanical generators, driven by heat engines fueled by combustion. The combustion of peat for electricity generation is one among the energy contributors in Rwanda as Gishoma peat power plant that provides 15MWh. The aim of this paper is to evaluate the life cycle environmental impacts of peat use for energy generation by using the dried peat for combustion at the power plant. Even though electricity is needed in Rwanda as one among the factors that boost the economy and development, the emission comes from peat has a high effect on the environment they considered impacts are global warming potential, acidification potential, and eutrophication potential. The Lifecycle assessment shows that the level of emission gases emitted and at which level those gases are compared to the international standards organization (ISO) then found that carbon dioxide is the gas which is emitted with the high percentage of 80.30% followed by sulfur 11.23% nitrogen oxides of 4.62% and methane of 3.85%. All those emissions have the different impact on the environment as described by the ISO and International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). According to the result found the quantity of gases emitted are approximate to the level of standard when consider the other gases emitted in the other stage like extraction it can be too high it is necessary to carry the deep analysis of peat from site extraction to the end use of peat in energy generation process.

show abstract

Section: Life Cycle Assessment Of Electricity Generation From Peatmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Life Cycle Assessment Approach to the Electricity Generation from Gishoma Peat Power Plant

2018

IJEE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A more narrowly focused study compared the 2009 EIA and CAMD CO 2 emissions at 210 coal-fired power plants, a subset of the total capacity in the US, and concluded that annual emissions from the EIA calculations were more accurate than the measured values contained within the CAMD data [14]. Though important in confirming that these two datasets have numerical differences at the facility level, a number of questions remain regarding the reliability of this analysis [15]. Indeed, the peer-reviewed discussion that followed this paper questioned the veracity of the analysis and whether or not the conclusions were possible given the limitations in the data.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bias present in US federal agency power plant CO ₂ emissions data and implications for the US clean power plan

Gurney

Huang

Coltin

2016

Environ. Res. Lett.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Power plants constitute roughly 40% of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) emissions in the United States. Climate change science, air pollution regulation, and potential carbon trading policies rely on accurate, unbiased quantification of these large point sources. Two US federal agencies-the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency-tabulate the emissions from US power plants using two different methodological approaches. We have analyzed those two data sets and have found that when averaged over all US facilities, the median percentage difference is less than 3%. However, this small difference masks large, non-Gaussian, positive and negative differences at individual facilities. For example, over the 2001-2009 time period, nearly one-half of the facilities have monthly emission differences that exceed roughly ±6% and one-fifth exceed roughly ±13%. It is currently not possible to assess whether one, or both, of the datasets examined here are responsible for the emissions difference. Differences this large at the individual facility level raise concerns regarding the operationalization of policy within the United States such as the recently announced Clean Power Plan. This policy relies on the achievement of state-level CO 2 emission rate targets. When examined at the state-level we find that one-third of the states have differences that exceed 10% of their assigned reduction amount. Such levels of uncertainty raise concerns about the ability of individual states to accurately quantify emission rates in order to meet the regulatory targets.

show abstract

“…However, recent research suggests that these two datasets exhibit a surprising level of disagreement at the individual power plant level (Ackerman & Sundquist 2008;Quick 2014;Gurney et al 2014). Integrated across all US power plants, the discrepancies tend to cancel, suggesting no overall bias.…”

Section: The Role Of Carbon Sciencementioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, should a state invest the time and effort in improved monitoring in collaboration with independent scientific efforts, a target might be lessened. Given that some states have targeted reductions less than 15%, uncertainty levels estimated at the individual facility-level may be commensurate with the target and hence, make the verity of meeting a goal, subject to challenge (Ackerman & Sundquist 2008;Quick 2014;Gurney et al 2014). Hence, investment in independent monitoring or assessment using advanced scientific techniques may prove prudent in the long-run, perhaps by easing a challenging reduction target or obviating the time and energy required to defend poorer quality estimation.…”

Section: The Role Of Carbon Sciencementioning

confidence: 99%

What is the role for carbon cycle science in the proposed EPA power plant rule?

Gurney

2015

Earth Perspectives

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

On June 2, 2014, the United States Environmental Protection Agency proposed goals and guidelines aimed at lowering carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) emissions from existing power plants in the United States. Should it be successfully implemented, US power plant CO 2 emissions would be reduced approximately 30 percent below 2005 levels by the year 2030. Rather than a single national reduction goal, the proposed rule specifies reduction targets unique to each US state but leaves the means by which states meet those targets, flexible to individual state conditions. Regardless of the policy mixture adopted in each US state, quantification of CO 2 emissions at the level of individual power plants will be a critical need. Recent research examining power plant CO 2 emissions has noted potentially large uncertainties at the individual facility level, uncertainty that remains poorly understood. At the same time, carbon scientists working on aspects of monitoring, reporting and verification of anthropogenic CO 2 emissions have developed a mixture of measurement and modeling capabilities as part of the development of a "carbon monitoring system", that could assist in assessing how well independent emissions quantification is performing currently and identify a path towards improved monitoring. Equally important is an assessment of uncertainty at the various space and time scales the EPA proposed rule implies. Application of these recent scientific capabilities to the needs of the EPA's proposed rule could offer a cogent, near-term example of how scientific research can directly enable better decision-making. This paper provides a review of the proposed rule and what role scientific research could play in the evolution of the rulemaking and its application in the future.

show abstract

Comment on Quick, J.C. 2014. Carbon dioxide emission tallies for 210 U.S. coal-fired power plants: A comparison of two accounting methods. J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc. 64: 73–79

Cited by 6 publications

References 2 publications

A Life Cycle Assessment Approach to the Electricity Generation from Gishoma Peat Power Plant

A Life Cycle Assessment Approach to the Electricity Generation from Gishoma Peat Power Plant

Bias present in US federal agency power plant CO ₂ emissions data and implications for the US clean power plan

What is the role for carbon cycle science in the proposed EPA power plant rule?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Comment on Quick, J.C. 2014. Carbon dioxide emission tallies for 210 U.S. coal-fired power plants: A comparison of two accounting methods. J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc. 64: 73–79

Cited by 6 publications

References 2 publications

A Life Cycle Assessment Approach to the Electricity Generation from Gishoma Peat Power Plant

A Life Cycle Assessment Approach to the Electricity Generation from Gishoma Peat Power Plant

Bias present in US federal agency power plant CO 2 emissions data and implications for the US clean power plan

What is the role for carbon cycle science in the proposed EPA power plant rule?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Bias present in US federal agency power plant CO ₂ emissions data and implications for the US clean power plan