Sentences with phrase «co2 than nuclear power»

The least - cost solar option would require 400 times more land area and emit 20 times more CO2 than nuclear power.

Not exact matches

Take a look at nuclear power, best safety record of any form of energy (even safer than wind), and even in the face of CO2 induced «climate change», they still are going to phase it out.

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

By the way, I'd just like to mention that I am far happier to be arguing about the comparative benefits of nuclear power, wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, conservation, efficiency, reforestation, organic agriculture, etc. for quickly reducing CO2 emissions and concentrations, than to be engaged in yet another argument with someone who doesn't believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, or that human activities are not causing warming, or that the Earth is cooling, or thinks that AGW is a «liberal» conspiracy to destroy capitalism, etc..

And again, my position is that (1) nuclear power is not needed, since we can get all the electricity we need, and more, from renewables; (2) nuclear can not possibly be expanded enough, quickly enough to have any significant impact on reducing GHG emissions in the time frame that's needed, while renewables can be (and already are); and (3) resources invested in expanding nuclear power would be far more effectively invested in renewables and / or efficiency, and the opportunity costs of nuclear therefore mean that putting resources into nuclear power hinders rather than helps the effort to quickly reduce CO2 emissions from generating electricity.

Of the country's 6,000 coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear, wind, and solar electric - generating facilities, a small sub-group of mostly coal - fired power generators produces more than its share of the nation's carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions compared with the electricity it produces, the report found.

A new 1,000 - page Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report appears to ignore both nuclear power and shale gas — even though both these energy sources emit far less CO2 than does coal.

With nuclear power cheaper than fossil fuel generated electricity it could avoid 50 % of CO2 emissions from fossil fuels by around mid 21st Century (and achieve the other objectives in the list).

According to one count, Germany's energy policy (Energiewende) to increase renewables, wean off of nuclear power, and cut CO2 emissions by 2022 has added more than $ 134 billion to power bills for Germans so far.

They'd be prepared to advocate all sorts of nutty schemes rather than accept that nuclear power can avoid CO2 emissions at < $ 0 / tonne CO2 — if we are allowed to remove the impediments that have been imposed by 50 years of irrational anti-nuclear protests which have resulted in mass radiation phobia and hysteria.

• Kyoto Protocol • EU ETS • Australian CO2 tax and ETS • Mandating and heavily subsidising ($ / TWh delivered) renewable energy • Masses of inappropriate regulations that have inhibited the development of nuclear power, made it perhaps five times more expensive now than it should be, slowed its development, slowed its roll out, caused global CO2 emissions to be 10 % to 20 % higher now than they would otherwise have been, meaning we are on a much slower trajectory to reduce emissions than we would be and, most importantly, we are locked in to fossil fuel electricity generation that causes 10 to 100 times more fatalities per TWh than would be the case if we allowed nuclear to develop (or perhaps 1000 times according to this: http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html • Making building regulations that effectively prevent people from selling, refurbishing or updating their houses if they are close to sea level (the damage to property values and to property owners» life savings is enormous as many examples in Australia are already demonstrating.

They're just saying that if you want zero - CO2 power, then nuclear is way more efficient than solar or wind on an unsubsidized basis.

An electricity grid powered b y mostly nuclear power (like France) with some pumped hydro and some gas for peaking, abates more CO2 than a mostly renewable energy powered grid, and does so ant about 1/3 the abatement cost.

Anyone still banging on about CO2 emissions in the electricity generation sector, ought to be banging on about nothing other than nuclear power.

Nuclear power, however, emits more than twice the total heat as its electrical output without the benefits of CO2 in the photosynthesis cycle.

Likewise if heat is indeed the main factor, nuclear power, though CO2 - free, can not be an alternative since total heat emitted by nuclear power plants is more than twice the electrical output.

We already have a good way of massively reducing our CO2 emissions (far more than even banning aviation altogether would achieve)-- namely replacing coal - and gas - fired power stations with nuclear ones.

That's why they support AGW theory (as a pretext for carbon taxes), while opposing nuclear power (in order to ensure that the actual effect of said carbon taxes is to raise revenue rather than to actually reduce CO2 emissions)?

And 5GW of newly built gas power plants, which also emit more CO2 than [practically zero carbon] nuclear power plants.

Just down the road from us is Didcot A power station, a large coal - burning plant with poor pollution control and therefore with substantial effects on local air quality, as well as more substantial emissions of radiation than from any UK nuclear power station and a Co2 output of about 8 million tonnes a year.

Likewise nuclear power produces no CO2 but does emit more than twice the total heat than its electrical output.

Nuclear power is safer than coal and when construction and operation are included it omits less CO2 than any comparable alternative.