Sentences with phrase «coal costs less»

Coal costs less.

Not exact matches

In some coal states in the Midwest and the South, electricity costs even less than that, and it will be a long time before solar is competitive in those regions.

Instead, with the imposition of a cap - and - trade program, O'Connor said, people looked at the sources of coal and realized they could obtain it from different parts of the country with lower sulfur, cutting emissions at less cost.

The average cost of generating nuclear energy in the United States was less than two cents per kilowatt - hour in 2006, according to the Atlanta - based utility data provider Ventyx, which puts it on par with coal.

«The model is capturing the fact that you have a lot of low - cost opportunities to reduce coal, from heavy - industry direct use as well as the electric power sector, from facilities using less energy - efficient technology or processes.»

In 2007 he was still casting about for a novel resource — one that contained so much power it would cost less than coal — when he had an epiphany in midair.

At a cost of less than 3 cents per kilowatt - hour, tornado energy is cheaper than burning coal (which rings up at 4 or 5 cents per kwh) and produces no additional greenhouse gases.

Railway tariffs cost about 0.15 yuan per metric ton for each kilometer, less than half the cost of around 0.35 yuan by truck, according to data from the China Coal Transport and Distribution Association.

Once the construction costs of a nuclear plant are amortized, its operating costs are less than those of any fossil fuel — fired plant, including coal.

So it would cost less to insulate every home than to burn coal to provide the energy now used to heat and cool uninsulated houses.

It's less costly to get electricity from wind turbines and solar panels than coal - fired power plants when climate change costs and other health impacts are factored in, according to a new study published in Springer's Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences.

Though the federal government is doubling down on coal, electric power companies are embracing less - polluting natural gas, wind and solar power as the cost of generating electricity from those sources falls.

He said coal power generation is no longer socially acceptable in many parts of the country and most electric power companies prefer natural gas and renewables because they cost less.

Less work required to capture the same amount of CO2 results in lowering the cost of using CCUS technology, making coal - to - chemicals factories a promising sector to reduce carbon emissions.

The DOE is asking Congress for $ 407 million to research how to burn coal most efficiently, along with $ 241 million to demonstrate such carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies — at least $ 900 million less than DOE said it would have cost to complete FutureGen.

In an emergency, unlike today's reactors, it shuts down without human intervention and without requiring electric power... Hundreds of nuclear scientists believe this technology has the ability to generate carbon - free power at a cost per kW less than coal.»

Clinton is right — we desperately need to begin the less - than - sexy work of revamping our infrastructure and doing the cost - benefit analysis that will pave the way for well - thought out projects in solar and wind, conservation, and even nuclear and improved efficiency at coal plants needs to be on the table.

Demonstrating that the overall environmental damage is less than that from coal does not imply that gas production and use is cost - free, and the sooner we reduce our dependence on fossil fuel sources of energy of all kinds the better.

I can do a lot more at less cost by building nuclear power plants or converting coal fired generators to modern gas - fired ones.

... In the U.S. electricity supply sector, the cost benchmark for reducing carbon dioxide emissions lies with substitution of natural gas for coal, especially older, less efficient units.

«The study seems an outlier in saying that when «all known costs» are considered, the average U.S. cost of producing electricity from established coal - fired plants is far less than new wind - power generation,»

Since the countries with low cost power are burning coal while the countries with high cost power are using less CO2 intensive energy supplies, the net result is a gobal increase in CO2.

«The study seems an outlier in saying that when «all known costs» are considered, the average U.S. cost of producing electricity from established coal - fired plants is far less than new wind - power generation,» PolitiFact found.

Study finds co-producing FT fuels and electricity from coal and biomass with CCS delivers low GHG synfuels at lower cost and with less biomass than cellulosic ethanol

Costs of generating electricity from coal and natural gas are rising as renewables penetrate the market and fossil fuel plants run less, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance.

With an estimated social cost of carbon — a damage estimate of global warming pollution — of $ 65 (far less than other estimates), the GED for coal - fired generators is 4.7 cents / kWh.

But delivering those same services with less energy, more productively used, could shrink 2050 usage to 71 quads, eliminate the need for oil, coal, nuclear energy, and one - third of the natural gas, and save $ 5 trillion in net - present - valued cost.

Toss in scale economies, and the result will be lower costs, greater energy security and an increased state economic multiplier effect as less money drains offshore to pay for expensive and dirty imported coal and oil.

For instance in China, high efficiency low emissions (HELE) coal technology costs five times less when compared to some renewables.

An analysis made public on Friday showed that new onshore wind plants due to come online in 2016 will cost... far less [per kWh] than coal, biomass and other forms of energy production.

cCGT takes less time to build than coal, costs less to build, and since runs at higher efficiency costs less to operate.

More dramatically, fear of radiation led to extraordinary safety requirements for nuclear power plants, far in excess of controls imposed on other high - risk industrial facilities, which made nuclear power less cost - competitive and led to more reliance on coal.

4) Will policies aimed at reducing the use of coal and oil be more or less cost - effective than policies aimed at adaptation to forecast changes as they emerge?

To reduce the cost and lower emissions, Beijing's four main coal - fired plants have begun installing purification systems and consumed 2.6 million metric tonnes of coal during the first quarter of this year, 200,000 tonnes less than the same period last year.

You are correct that if we could prevent the sort of nonsense that DV82XL discussed, we could have nuclear at a cost less than coal.

Focus our attention on is how can we get nuclear at a cost less than coal in Australia.

What we need to concern ourselves with is how to get nuclear in Australia at a cost less than coal.

This is obviously a debatable assumption as one could for instance argue that a more rapid growth in renewable energy could allow for less energy efficiency gains and growing demand for electricity, or perhaps a prolonging of the coal industry at the cost of natural gas.

What do we need to do to bring nuclear power to Australia at a cost that will be substantially less than coal?

I have argued on other posts why I believe nuclear could and should cost less than coal.

Given that health and environmental costs of coal are another two to 4.3 cents per kilowatt hour, wind energy is unequivocally less expensive than is coal energy.»

Australian coal is becoming less competitive, given its high cost operations in a highly competitive market.

Low - cost natural gas is making gas - fired power plants cheaper and more competitive to operate, causing less cost - competitive coal and nuclear to retire.

Market Transformation One of our goals is to make clean - energy affordable and cost less than its dirty counterparts such as coal.

IEEFA finds India's wind and solar energy costs have fallen 50 % to as low as $ 38 per megawatt hour (MWh) over the past two years, with renewable energy bids in new auctions costing 20 % less than the cost of wholesale electricity from existing Indian coal generation, and 30 - 50 % less than the required cost to justify new imported coal or liquefied natural gas capacity.

This regulation would have substantially increased the cost of coal generated electricity, thus making coal less competitive and reducing CO2 emissions.

This was what the CPP was doing, and economics too because coal, especially clean coal, is less cost - efficient for energy providers than natural gas.

The Judge was not fooled, and ruled unambiguously, as reported by Bloomberg BNA, University of Minnesota Consortium on Law and Values and MPRNEWS: Updated climate change costs make coal - fired power less attractive:

Since much RE now costs the same or less than coal, oil their real cost is Zero or even profitable and far less costly as fossil fuel costs rise..

If less supply is available it will increase the energy costs for burning coal compared to alternatives.