Sentences with phrase «if carbon capture»

Addendum: if carbon capture and sequestration were a proven, cost - effective technology that enabled states to bypass the cap, we would surely suggest that as a next layer.

If carbon capture and storage «is not widely deployed in the 2020s,» the International Energy Agency said last year, «an extraordinary burden would rest on other low - carbon technologies to deliver lower emissions in line with global climate objectives.»

If carbon capture technologies are seen as more broadly applicable and more important for the fight against climate change, it is more likely that these technologies will get greater research funding.

It would be nice if carbon capture and sequestration would work — unclear how well it does, since it has never been tried at scale.

If carbon capture and storage becomes a reality, these sidelined coal - fired power plants can be torn down and replaced with new technology, low - emission coal plants.

Interviewer: If carbon capture and storage doesn't work is the game over for your business of generating electricity with coal?

The United States has many promising options for obtaining new supplies of electricity and changing its supply mix during the next two to three decades, especially if carbon capture and storage and evolutionary nuclear technologies can be deployed at required scales.

«If carbon capture and storage technologies are not realised, it may not be possible to keep the temperature increase below 2 °C,» said Peters.

At the same time: If carbon capture and storage is to become common, it must be profitable to do so.

Not exact matches

«If Canada captures just 2 per cent of the cleantech market by 2020, which also happens to be our share of carbon emissions, we'd build a $ 60 - billion industry.

It's essential to extend and expand tax incentives for carbon capture, update state laws to include CCUS technology in clean energy standards, and fund continued carbon capture RD&D, among other things, if we are going to reach our emissions - cutting goals.

Soils, if managed appropriately, can capture and store carbon when photosynthetically - derived sugars are feed to soil microbes.

In other words, the way such carbon capture and sequestration will work remains as hazy as the smog coal - fired power plants produce but it needs to become clear quickly if the world plans to continue burning such fossil sunlight.

Capturing that carbon dioxide and storing it will be essential if climate change induced by such pollution is to be averted, according to reports from the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

If chemists could capture carbon dioxide and turn it into chemical building blocks for other products, the way plants do, says Cornell University chemical engineer Lynden Archer, «carbon dioxide would not be a nuisance anymore, but a gift.»

Coal may be cheaper if we don't capture the carbon and sequester it, but I think everybody understands we can't do that anymore.

Beyond the 2020s, gas - fired power stations should only play a significant role if fitted with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology, the report recommends.

If damaged, they would stop capturing carbon dioxide and a large amount of it could be released into the atmosphere by decomposing vegetation

IF HUMANITY is to avoid dangerous climate change, we need to capture hundreds of billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide.

But even if the carbon released during production were somehow captured and sequestered — a technology that remains unproven at any meaningful scale — some studies indicate that liquid coal would still release 4 to 8 percent more global warming pollution than regular gasoline.

But if biofuels genuinely capture carbon beyond what was being captured on the land before the land was put into biofuels production, then there is a net savings.

In view of the need to capture carbon and your report on rice plants growing five times larger when given a microbiotic fungus (28 July, p 8), what a temptation to use this on giant sequoia, even if it would be a long - term experiment.

If, as Perry has claimed, climate change is a baseless hoax, it makes no sense that he should advocate for a technology explicitly designed to capture and sequester carbon emissions from coal - fired power plants for the sole purpose of averting the warming effect of those emissions.

«If this dynamic continues, China has the opportunity to become an exporter of carbon capture and storage technologies.»

If that really does happen, the need for carbon capture and sequestration will disappear.

Mastering carbon capture and storage will be a big part of that if the world continues to rely on coal as expected, perhaps preventing catastrophic global climate change.

If the temperature and density are high enough, though, the short - lived beryllium nucleus can (before it decays) capture another helium nucleus in what is essentially a three - body collision to form a nucleus of carbon - 12 — namely, 8Be + 4He → 12C.

If sufficient hydrogen is available, nearly all of the carbon in the coal or biomass feedstock to a Fischer - Tropsch plant would end up in the fuel products and not in the air, eliminating the need to capture and sequester carbon dioxide, the authors said.

Commercial demonstrations of the conversion technologies integrated with carbon capture and storage will have to be pursued aggressively and proven economically viable by 2015 if these technologies are to be commercially deployable before 2020.

Coal - to - liquid fuels with carbon capture and storage could replace about 15 — 20 % of current fuel consumption in the transportation sector (2 — 3 million barrels per day; the lower estimate holds if coal is also used to produce coal - and - biomass - to - liquid fuels) and would have lifecycle CO2 emissions similar to petroleum - based fuels.

if you take the CO2 to produce the CO, you're left with extra O2 and something that could theoretically be made carbon - neutral (assuming all the CO2 is captured and perfectly transformed into CO with no loss of carbon).

If less carbon is captured by these organisms, more remains in the atmosphere, adding to global heating.

If human - caused climate change is to be slowed enough to avert the worst consequences of global warming, carbon dioxide emissions from coal - fired power plants and other pollutants will have to be captured and injected deep into the ground to prevent them from being released into the atmosphere.

@raydowe - The carbon by - product is called carbon dioxide, and if the ethanol is from biological sources the carbon dioxide has in the fuel production stage been captured from the atmosphere, so there are no net carbon dioxide emissions.

In my view, if the coal industry does not proactively agree to, and indeed volunteer for, a prompt moratorium on the construction of new coal - fired power plants until carbon capture and storage are proven and viable, and included in commercial plants, we should get out the literature, the musical lyrics, the poetry, the ethical codes, and so forth and create a collection of material that brings to vivid life the «problems» (to put it mildly) that Shakespeare illuminates, as they will then apply to the coal industry.

As for the criticism for McCain wanting to build non-carbon capturing coal plants, since we're going to be burning coal for decades by any estimate, if we implement a carbon restrictive regime, wouldn't we want to allow industry to build new plants that are more efficient than the current fleet?

, like when mom wanted you to clean your room, is if a moratorium is placed on the building of new coal - fired power plants until carbon capture and storage technology can be built into such plants.

If the goal is to capture carbon emissions, wouldn't it be more intelligent to try to fund technologies to recycle them into new energy or products?

If the goal of climate policy is to stabilize concentrations of carbon dioxide, then air capture technologies should be enthusiastically welcomed as a possible contributor to achieving that goal.

The comment, made during a Jan. 17 interview with the editorial board of The San Francisco Chronicle, essentially explains how the kind of cap and trade mechanism sought by both Mr. Obama and Senator John McCain (the latter at least in his platform, if not on the stump) would make coal combustion ever more costly (unless the world finally gets serious about investing in large - scale testing and deployment of systems for capturing and burying carbon dioxide).

In some ways, how people reaction to air capture can help to clarify if they see climate policy as focused on carbon dioxide, or all of those other things getting a free ride.

If China decides to make coal do double duty, propelling cars and providing electricity, the chances of curbing greenhouse gases (without broad deployment of systems for capturing carbon dioxide) will be nil.

Third, new technologies, such as underground coal gasification and especially carbon capture and storage, can — if given substantial financial support — reduce emissions substantially from coal use in power plants and industrial facilities.

«If we want to minimise the rape of nature, the best energy solution is increased efficiency, natural gas with carbon capture, and nuclear power.»

Karen Street wrote: «If we're going to address climate change, it's going to start with solutions experts agree on (efficiency, low - GHG sources such as nuclear, carbon capture and storage, wind, geothermal, cellulosic biofuels, and eventually solar)...»

If we're going to address climate change, it's going to start with solutions experts agree on (efficiency, low - GHG sources such as nuclear, carbon capture and storage, wind, geothermal, cellulosic biofuels, and eventually solar), and processes that experts agree on (increasing the cost of GHG emissions, funding more R&D, mandates sometimes).

If the question is about climate, as was the case in the Biden - Palin debate, one can only presume that the «clean» refers to capturing and storing carbon dioxide, the main heat - trapping emission linked to recent warming.

After all, considering the math presented, if the soil / foliage carbon capture is tripled such that it eliminates the net carbon emission into the atmosphere, the natural component alone will eventually take us back to the pre-industrial range.

«If we were to capture 1 ton of carbon per acre per year on the roughly 5 billion hectares of grasslands worldwide, we would remove 12 Gt of C from the atmosphere per year, that is, 6 ppm annually.

Jesse Ausubel long ago also noted that natural gas is a far better bet to link with carbon capture (through «zero emission power plant» technology), if you think carbon capture and sequestration is a serious prospect down the line.