Tuesday, July 03, 2018 3:25:52 PM
Probably not, but the natural gas turbines could be located where the gas supply is located and the next question becomes whether we have the electrical transmission lines to the locations that were previously fed by coal fired plants. I don't know the answer to either question.
With coal being a cheaper option to biomass and the US not being motivated by CO2 emissions, I'm wondering if this offtake agreement is for another emissions related reason that the US does care about such as sulfur. If I was a power plant situated next to a coal supply that doesn't meet low sulfur requirements and I have to import low sulfur coal at an extremely high cost, perhaps co-firing biocoal with high sulfur coal brings emissions down within regulatory requirements.
Phillip
ECGI Holdings Announces LOI to Acquire Pacific Saddlery to Capitalize on $12.72 Billion Market Potential • ECGI • Jun 13, 2024 9:50 AM
Fifty 1 Labs, Inc. Announces Major Strategic Advancements and Shareholder Updates • CAFI • Jun 13, 2024 8:45 AM
Snakes & Lattes Opens Pop-Up Location at The Wellington Market in Toronto: A New Destination for Fun and Games - Thanks 'The Well', PepsiCo, Indie Pale House & All Sponsors & Partners for Their Commitment & Assistance Throughout The Process • FUNN • Jun 13, 2024 8:18 AM
HealthLynked Introduces Innovative Online Medical Record Request Form Using DocuSign • HLYK • Jun 12, 2024 8:00 AM
Ubiquitech Software Corp (OTC:UBQU) Posts $624,585 Quarterly Revenue - Largest Quarter Since 2018 • UBQU • Jun 11, 2024 10:13 AM
Element79 Gold Corp Files for OTCQB Uplisting, Provides Financial Update • ELEM • Jun 11, 2024 9:25 AM