Sentences with phrase «co2 than coal»

Natural gas produces about 50 % to 70 % less CO2 than coal for a given amount of energy produced (the higher figure is compared to the less efficient coal plants, which are probably those being closed right now), and while fracking and moving natural gas around isn't a free lunch by any mean, it compares favorably to mountaintop removal and all the energy that this requires (moving a whole mountain and grinding rock down to powder, can you imagine how energy intensive that is?).

Gas contains less CO2 than coal.

a comparable 50 Megawatt biomass facility, whether combined heat and power or just for power production, spews 50 % more CO2 than coal!

When fully burned, gas releases less CO2 than coal or oil, but currently huge amounts of methane are escaping unburned into the atmosphere.

The EU has declared wood pellets to be green despite the fact wood pellets produce more CO2 than coal.

Burning trees / forests / wood is filthier than coal and produces more CO2 than coal, especially when it is harvested in the USA and trucked to ports in the USA and shipped to ports in the UK and then trucked to DRAX.

The EU is behind the biomass scam where coal is replaced with wood and wood produces more CO2 than coal.

More CO2 than coal.

And produces less CO2 than coal and forests.

It also emits more CO2 than coal plants and to this writer it seems strange that the UK will look to North and South America to supply them with biomass fuel that requires processing and shipment thousands of miles, when they (Drax) could use locally mined coal to generate power.

When burned, petcoke emits 5 - 10 % more climate change - causing CO2 than coal.

But two things became clear to me: Burning the wood pellets immediately releases more CO2 than coal (easy to figure out), and producing wood pellets for Europe's power plants is causing a lot of trees to be chopped down in the U.S. (surprisingly difficult to figure out), which immediately reduces carbon sequestration.

Exxon Mobil also touted its status as the United States» No. 1 natural gas producer, noting that gas emits significantly less CO2 than coal when burned to generate electricity.

Not exact matches

This will help to save more than one million tons of CO2 when compared with a «conventional» coal fired plant.

Extracting CO2 from traditional coal plants is much less efficient than from gasification plants, where coal is first turned to a gas and reacted with water to form CO2 and hydrogen.

And burning natural gas releases 43 percent less CO2 than burning coal.

Yet U.S. coal - fired power plants produce more than 30 times more CO2 than Albertan oil sands facilities — 45 million metric tons of greenhouse gases versus nearly two billion metric tons.

Even the oil sands ultimate consumption in a gasoline, diesel or jet engine only results in 500 kilograms of CO2 - equivalent per barrel of refined petroleum products, meaning total oil sands emissions from well to wheel are considerably lower than those of this nation's more than 500 power plants burning coal to generate electricity.

Even all the oil reservoirs in the world could not handle the more than 13 billion metric tons of CO2 that come from burning coal each year, even if pipelines and the rest could be built.

By their estimations, coal - fired power plants coming online since the turn of the millennium will emit more CO2 than all other human coal burning has since the dawn of the industrial age: 660 billion metric tons over their 50 - year lifetime versus 524 billion metric tons between 1751 and 2000.

The Department of Energy estimated in May 2007 that a new power plant burning pulverized coal and equipped with amine scrubbers to capture 90 percent of the CO2 would make electricity at a cost of more than $ 114 per megawatt - hour (compared with just $ 63 per MWh without CO2 capture).

Australia relies heavily on coal for its own electricity as well, emitting more CO2 per person than any other developed country, and its agricultural emissions are among the highest per capita in the world, mainly because of the large numbers of sheep and cattle.

The purity makes the capture process cheaper than what is needed to capture CO2 from the burning of coal, which creates a much more complex stream of gases than a wet corn mill.

And attaching the Calera process to the nation's more than 600 coal - fired power plants or even steel mills and other industrial sources is even more attractive as burning coal results in flue gas with as much as 150,000 parts per million of CO2.

To sequester one billion tons of CO2, more than 3 billion tons basalt would have to be spread, a mindboggling amount equal to almost half of the current global coal production.

«More than anything else this requires rapid and strong reductions of burning fossil fuels such as coal; but some emissions, for instance from industrial processes, will be difficult to reduce — therefore getting CO2 out of the air and storing it safely is a rather hot topic.

This is especially important as the world experiences an ongoing gas glut, which is a lower CO2 - emitting fuel than coal but can also compete with and push out renewable energy.

To heat that boiler, the damp, crumbly brown coal known as lignite — which is even more polluting than the harder black anthracite variety — burns in the presence of pure oxygen, a process known as oxyfuel, releasing as waste both water vapor and that more notorious greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide (CO2).

But in the Midwest and South, where coal fuels the bulk of electricity generation, a hybrid produces less CO2 than an electric car.

Eighty - five percent of those CO2 emissions come from burning coal, oil and natural gas, which are providing more than 80 % of the world's energy; most of the rest coming from deforestation.

The reason for this is that coals generally have greater (2X) affinity for adsorbing CO2 than for methane.

Yes, the amount of CO2 released is about the same (actually, gasification is a more efficient conversion strategy than direct burning of coal, so a bit more CO2 is released in the process).

~ 13 times less than land use changes (3.4 gigatons) ~ 11.5 times less than light - duty vehicles (3.0 gigatons) ~ 5.3 times less than concrete production (1.4 gigatons) ~ 2 dozen 1000 MW coal - fired power plants (2 % of the world's coal - fired electrical generation) Or, roughly the same CO2 emissions as Pakistan, Kazakhstan, Poland or South Africa.

The oil sands are still a tiny part of the world's carbon problem — they account for less than a tenth of one percent of global CO2 emissions — but to many environmentalists they are the thin end of the wedge, the first step along a path that could lead to other, even dirtier sources of oil: producing it from oil shale or coal.

Since a big recession might hit coal - burning utilities» customers more than other utility customers (to name one example) or hit coal - using industries like cement and steel more than others, one has to look carefully not only at CO2 emissions changes but at underlying economic activity or personal activity changes and how those are tied to emissions in a disaggregated way.

In fact, nuclear is greater than coal in terms of CO2 through pre-production life cycles stages.

Nuclear power produces less greenhouse gas [CO2] than any other source, including coal, natural gas, hydro, solar and wind.

The KDHE has denied a permit for a coal plant that would have been more efficient (read, more MWH per ton of coal and less CO2 and other pollutants per MWH) than older plants whose permits they will be renewing as a matter of course over the coming months and years.

On gas: several studies have argued that gas is no better than coal from a CO2 perspective, given methane leakage.

Revelle and Seuss's «Grand Geophysical Experiment» — they had the luxury in the late»50s to define it in that geologically detached way — will dump thousands of gigatonnes of carbon from gas, oil and coal into the atmosphere as CO2 as they are burned for energy a million times faster than these fossil fuels were made by nature.

While ethanol, for example derived from corn but distilled in a facility powered by coal was, in fact, on average worse, than gasoline, some of the envisioned cellulosic - based biofuels could be dramatically better on a g CO2 eq / MJ basis.

Methane is many times more potent than CO2 in the atmosphere, and since the fracking process emits huge quantities of methane into the atmosphere, gas is not preferable to coal in the short term or long term.

Taken together this is rather more than double the 169 million tonnes of CO2 coming from our coal fired power stations.

We're going to burn more coal over the next 30 years than in all of human history, CO2 emissions are rising at worst case expectations, and we're looking at 6 degrees Farenheit temperature rise over that time.

She explains that in all but three grid regions in China, electric vehicles produce more CO2 per mile because of the coal source for the power than the equivalent gasoline - powered car:

If we choose to use our own abundant coal resources to provide the energy for electricity, heating, and motive power; remove CO2 from the coal - fired electrical generationg plant smokestacks, and add better safety systems to the mines, we will have done all that we need to do other than greatly improve and enlarge our public transportation systems, and the reliability of our power grid system.

Because it specifies the capture of emissions from coal burning and one can only hope that it will also mean a reduction in mercury and soot and other exotic substances which I think pose a greater threat than the CO2 per se.

both are much more realistic than CO2 capture for coal plants.

Jim Hansen's worries are all focused on [the greenhouse gas] CO2 so he's not directly addressing the risk question (for example, the reality that coal produces more radiation and deaths than nuclear, etc.).

Sometimes seeing some turbines off in the distance (and in many cases they will be over the horizon, so they won't even be visibile) is still a smaller price to pay than to have coal plants spewing out CO2, particulate matter, mercury, etc in the air that we and our kids breathe.