Early crediting of emissions reductions — a panacea or Pandora’s box?

2000 ◽  
pp. 185-197
Author(s):  
Axel Michaelowa ◽  
Marcus Stronzik
Keyword(s):  
Emissions Reductions

ENERGY USE, CONSERVATION AND EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS IN TAIWANESE COSMETICS INDUSTRY

2014 ◽  
Vol 13 (12) ◽  
pp. 2971-2976
Author(s):  
Gui-Bing Hong ◽  
Te-Li Su ◽  
Jenq-Daw Lee
Keyword(s):  
Energy Use ◽  
Emissions Reductions

A Decentralised Approach to Emissions Reductions

2013 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 24-33 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. Napoli
Keyword(s):  
Emissions Reductions

Is the service industry really low-carbon? Energy, jobs and realistic country GHG emissions reductions

2021 ◽  
Vol 292 ◽  
pp. 116878
Author(s):  
Simon H. Roberts ◽  
Barney D. Foran ◽  
Colin J. Axon ◽  
Alice V. Stamp
Keyword(s):  
Service Industry ◽  
Ghg Emissions ◽  
Low Carbon ◽  
Emissions Reductions ◽  
Low Carbon Energy

scholarly journals Jet A and Propane gas combustion in a turboshaft engine: performance and emissions reductions

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ali Hasan ◽  
Oskar J. Haidn
Keyword(s):  
Combustion Process ◽  
Engine Performance ◽  
Emissions Reductions ◽  
Gas Combustion ◽  
Liquid Petroleum Gas ◽  
Performance And Emissions ◽  
Air Mixing ◽  
Turboshaft Engine ◽  
Engine Performance And Emissions ◽  
Lower Carbon

AbstractThe Paris Agreement has highlighted the need in reducing carbon emissions. Attempts in using lower carbon fuels such as Propane gas have seen limited success, mainly due to liquid petroleum gas tanks structural/size limitations. A compromised solution is presented, by combusting Jet A fuel with a small fraction of Propane gas. Propane gas with its relatively faster overall igniting time, expedites the combustion process. Computational fluid dynamics software was used to demonstrate this solution, with results validated against physical engine data. Jet A fuel was combusted with different Propane gas dosing fractions. Results demonstrated that depending on specific propane gas dosing fractions emission reductions in ppm are; NOx from 84 to 41, CO2 from less than 18,372 to less than 15,865, escaping unburned fuels dropped from 11.4 (just Jet A) to 6.26e-2 (with a 0.2 fraction of Propane gas). Soot and CO increased, this is due to current combustion chamber air mixing design.

Characterizing non-box trailer activity and aerodynamic devices for greenhouse gas emissions reductions

2021 ◽  
Vol 93 ◽  
pp. 102763
Author(s):  
Luciana M.B. Ventura ◽  
Yu (Jade) Jiang ◽  
Kanok Boriboonsomsin ◽  
George Scora ◽  
Kent Johnson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Greenhouse Gas Emissions ◽  
Greenhouse Gas ◽  
Emissions Reductions ◽  
Gas Emissions

Opportunities for forest sector emissions reductions: a state‐level analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexa J. Dugan ◽  
Jeremy W. Lichstein ◽  
Al Steele ◽  
Juha M. Metsaranta ◽  
Steven Bick ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
State Level ◽  
Forest Sector ◽  
Emissions Reductions ◽  
Level Analysis

scholarly journals Costs, Emissions Reductions, and Vehicle Repair: Evidence from Arizona

2000 ◽  
Vol 50 (4) ◽  
pp. 509-521 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amy Ando ◽  
Virginia McConnell ◽  
Winston Harrington
Keyword(s):  
Emissions Reductions

scholarly journals Norms, Incentives, or Deadlines? Explaining Norway’s Noncompliance with the Gothenburg Protocol

2018 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 76-98 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andreas Kokkvoll Tveit
Keyword(s):  
Air Pollution ◽  
Western Europe ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Considerable Influence ◽  
Emissions Reductions ◽  
Transboundary Air Pollution ◽  
2010 Target ◽  
Deadline Pressure ◽  
Business As Usual ◽  
Gothenburg Protocol

Norway, previously an international frontrunner concerning reductions of transboundary air pollution, fell far short of its 2010 target for nitrogen oxides (NO x) under the 1999 Gothenburg Protocol. In this article I show that leading international compliance theories cannot explain much of this noncompliance. While little evidence supports the management school’s explanations, Norwegian policies are also inconsistent with the enforcement school. Albeit too late to meet the deadline, Norway imposed a NO x tax in 2007. Moreover, the resulting emissions reductions were deeper than in a business-as-usual scenario, despite no international enforcement. That the NO x tax was imposed only after an environmentalist party gained considerable influence over NO x policies in 2005 supports an office-incumbent hypothesis. However, as emissions also declined significantly in many other European countries after 2005, the explanation is likely structural. One possibility is the deadline-pressure hypothesis: As the deadline approached, decision-makers across Northern and Western Europe considered emissions reductions to be more urgent than before.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document