3 ms·
Honestly, still... if that was what it cost globally? Sounds cheap to me, the next closest I've read about is in the $100-$120/ton range. Better to just not em
by neltnerb 5y ago
Honestly, still... if that was what it cost globally? Sounds cheap to me, the next closest I've read about is in the $100-$120/ton range.
Better to just not emit it, but nice to have numbers for how big a carbon tax needs to be to encourage reduction over capture.
- Factorium 5y agoAt a mere $15/tonne, coal becomes 100% more expensive (ie. dead): https://www.resources.org/common-resources/calculating-various-fuel-prices-under-a-carbon-tax/ https://www.resources.org/common-resources/calculating-vario... The low-hanging fruit is to just stop burning coal for electricity, and to enact that restriction globally. We can deal with gas, metallurgical coal, oil later. Just get rid of coal now.
- neltnerb 5y agoI agree, phases make sense. I myself like to think of the situation you're describing as the coal costing the utility $15/ton or whatever while the rest of us pay that $100-120/ton to repair the commons. But certainly different sources will become less viable at different extra costs, and perhaps for coal $15/ton might as well be $100-120/ton.