Response to comments by Gurney et al. regarding “Carbon dioxide emission tallies for 210 U.S. coal-fired power plants: A comparison of two accounting methods”

Figures & data

Figure 1. Illustration showing that poor measurement precision due to random measurement error inevitably increases the range of measurement variation. (a) Measurements with good accuracy and good precision show a small range of variation. (b) Measurements with good accuracy but poor precision show a large range of variation.

Figure 2. Annual CO₂ emission rates calculated from flue gas volume and CO₂ concentration (CAMD data) and fuel consumption and quality (EIA data) for 210 US power plants differ by ±10.8%. This distribution is identical to that shown in figure 1 of Quick (2014) for the corresponding EIA and CAMD CO₂ emission tallies.

Figure 3. The log of the annual CO₂ emission tallies calculated from the EIA and CAMD data differ by ±0.7%. The distribution for these log-transformed values is much different from that shown in figure 1 of Quick (2014) for the corresponding EIA and CAMD CO₂ emission tallies.

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. doi:10.1080/10962247.2013.833146

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar