Sentences with phrase «because emissions from the coal»

Not exact matches

Environmentalists and health workers in favor of the CPP will emphasize how the plan would lead to billions of dollars in savings on hospital bills because it also would slash emissions from coal plants.

But the court accepted the Australian government's case that there was no definitive proof that coal from the Carmichael mine would increase global greenhouse emissions, because multiple factors affect how much coal is burned annually.

That's important because climate scientists say that phasing out carbon emissions from coal is a crucial step toward avoiding the worst effects of coal.

The growth rate of fossil fuel emissions increased from 1.5 % / year during 1980 — 2000 to 3 % / year in 2000 — 2012, mainly because of increased coal use [4]--[5].

The shale gas in recent exploration in the United States, that could meet the domestic demand of the country for natural gas at current levels of consumption for over 100 years, is extremely negative for the environment because it generates half the carbon emissions from coal, and pollutes the sheets underground aquifers.

I myself have been accused of being a paid shill for the coal industry, because I argued that rapidly deploying solar and wind energy technologies, along with efficiency and smart grid technologies, is a much faster and much more cost effective way of reducing GHG emissions from electricity generation than building new nuclear power plants.

However, peak oil means a double whammy — it reducec GHG emissions from oil, however, there is the danger, that we switch to coal - to - liquids, gas - to - liquids, tar sands and oil shales, just because increases in energy efficiency, solar and wind output are not enough to counter population increase, decrease in oil availability, and increase in total energy consumption...

EPA Rules Controlling Greenhouse - gas Emissions — The big day for Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy should come sometime in June, when her agency is scheduled to unveil historic standards controlling carbon emissions from the nation's fleet of power plants, which includes nearly 600 coal - fired plants poised to be hit the hardest, because coal emits more carbon than oil or natEmissions — The big day for Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy should come sometime in June, when her agency is scheduled to unveil historic standards controlling carbon emissions from the nation's fleet of power plants, which includes nearly 600 coal - fired plants poised to be hit the hardest, because coal emits more carbon than oil or natemissions from the nation's fleet of power plants, which includes nearly 600 coal - fired plants poised to be hit the hardest, because coal emits more carbon than oil or natural gas.

In the absence of being able to make that policy call at this time on dangerous interference, what we're doing as an interim measure is working bottom up to see how aggressive can we be in finding a pathway to low - carbon power generation from coal, because that accounts for more than 50 percent of emissions; how aggressive can we be in transitioning to a much greater diversity of fuel supply than petroleum, and vehicle technology, and that's 20 percent of emissions; and then what can we do much more rapidly to halt deforestation, which is 20 percent of emissions.

The country's carbon dioxide emissions are back to the levels of the early 1990s, in large measure because moderately - priced natural gas has been taking market share away from coal in electric generation.

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.

This is relevant because the greenhouse impact of leaks and emissions from gas operations remains an important consideration, even as new research supports the role of gas in cutting emissions relative to coal.

The Reality Coalition's TV spots don't entirely make that clear, but that is in part because the debate has shifted away from how to mitigate coal's emissions to whether or not we can call that process «clean.»

Petroleum emissions have declined since the late 1990s largely because many facilities transitioned to natural gas; emissions from coal combustion are nominal.

Last year the underlying multi-year average growth rate was higher than ever because the rate of emissions from the burning of coal, oil, and natural gas has experienced a steady upward trend.

Emissions from coal - fired power plants, which emit much less BC because of their better combustion efficiency, are not included here.»

HELE coal technology is important not only for its emissions reductions benefits, but also because it is a vital first step towards carbon capture and storage (CCS); a suite of technologies that can capture 90 % of CO2 emissions and store them underground, preventing them from entering the atmosphere.

Yes I can say Muller misstated the difference in emissions between coal, oil and gas, because the other components of life cycle emissions (such as the fugitive emissions you referred to) are small compared with emissions from fuel combustion.

In a sharp change from its cautious approach in the past, the National Academy of Sciences on Wednesday called for taxes on carbon emissions, a cap - and - trade program for such emissions or some other strong action to curb runaway global warming.Such actions, which would increase the cost of using coal and petroleum — at least in the immediate future — are necessary because «climate change is occurring, the Earth is warming... concentrations of carbon dioxide are increasing, and there are very clear fingerprints that link [those effects] to humans,» said Pamela A. Matson of Stanford University, who chaired one of five panels organized by the academy at the request of Congress to look at the science of climate change and how the nation should respond.

EIA says the largest emissions drop came from coal — largely because of increased natural gas use.

As far as I know there was never been any opposition, from any part of the political spectrum, to the burning of coal, or any other fossil fuel, solely because of its CO2 emissions before scientific evidence that CO2 build up was a problem.

The US natural gas industry has often argued that a switch to natural gas will significantly reduce ghg emissions from the electricity sector because natural gas emits almost 50 % less CO2 per unit of energy produced than coal combustion.

«The underlying energy consumption trends that resulted in these changes — mainly because more electricity has been generated from natural gas than from other fossil fuels — have helped to lower the U.S. emissions level since 2005 because natural gas is a less carbon - intensive fuel than either coal or petroleum.»

The interest in natural gas combustion as a potential solution to climate change has been gaining because US ghg emissions have fallen somewhat as natural gas from hydraulic fracturing technologies has been rapidly replacing coal in electricity sector generation.

More and more people are learning about how bad fracking is, even Robert F. Kennedy jr, came out and publicly admitted that Fracking is not a safe bridge away from fossil fuels and is worse for climate change then using coal because of the fugitive methane emissions that are released in the fracking process's.

The growth rate of fossil fuel emissions increased from 1.5 % / year during 1980 — 2000 to 3 % / year in 2000 — 2012, mainly because of increased coal use [4]--[5].

Fossil Fuel is a generic term that isn't quite correct Natural Gasoline is a distilled derivative of oil but almost all ofit is manufactured from cracked and recombined oil derivativeswhile natural gasoline is further refined intoPropane, butane, Proproline (a plastics feed stock), and Natural gasand also separates out sulfur (for fertilizer and explosives) Gasoline can be made from coal («Coaline») or from organic matter («Bio-fuel») but uses a few of oil based feed stocks instead tomake «Sythiline» (artificial gasoline) This gasoline is actually cleaner burning then natural gas with allit's «flare offs» (butane, propane, propoline, sulfur) used in theearly 19th century because it is manufactured only with essentialHydrocarbons Diesel fuel is also becoming more and more Manufactured instead ofdistilled as demand for it rises but improvements in Hydro cleaningis allowing for diesel with no volatile chemicals like sulfur andmercury (taken out for petro - chemical feedstock to make fertilizerand thermometers) In both cases what you have is pure hydro - carbons, a carbon atomwith hydrogen atoms attached to it In the case of gasoline there is CH1, cH7, CH11 When in a combustion engine the gasoline is sprayed into the pistonafter being mixed with air and the drive of the engine compressesthe the chamber filled with the gasoline mist until it's full downstoke then the spark plug causes the Exothermic reaction... which isthe conversion of the potential energy in the gasoline mist to heatand force, with the force side of that equation shooting the pistonupward and the top of the stroke kicking what's left of thecaramelized gasoline mist out into the Emission control box If the Emulsion control box wasn't there to filter out the burntgasoline particles, any potential additives and volatile chemicalsthen the caramelized gunk hitting air would create CARBON MONOXIDEin the cooler then the heat of the engine difference CARBON MONOXIDE can also become a problem if the Emissions controlBox filter, air filters or muffler filters is worn or damaged.

Nuclear power is often seen as attractive because it can offer baseload power without carbon dioxide emissions that come from fossil - fuel natural gas and coal power plants.

On two interesting asides, John P. Holdren, director of Woods Hole and one of the presenters, pulled up the statistic that in 2004, the emissions in the US from coal - electric power were more than the emissions from motor vehicles (an important point to consider when Bush touts coal as a renewable energy, falsely labelling it «green» simply because it is abundant).

Despite the growth in renewables, carbon emissions from the electricity sector continue remain high because the market is allowed to favour the most polluting fuels such as coal and peat to generate electricity.

The report's authors point out that recent increases in emissions from the EU's coal - fired power sector are not due to more coal - fuelled facilities coming on stream, but rather because existing plants are running at full capacity.

Because the social cost of carbon increases each year, calculations of how much climate change damages are expected because of the emissions from this coal should take into account when the coal is likely to be Because the social cost of carbon increases each year, calculations of how much climate change damages are expected because of the emissions from this coal should take into account when the coal is likely to be because of the emissions from this coal should take into account when the coal is likely to be burned.

And while German emissions have gone down since the 1990s, most of that is because, after reunification, Germany closed the inefficient coal plants from East Germany.

fracking is good because it allows us to produce natural gas cheaper than coal, and that allows a rapid decrease in greenhouse gas emissions from electricity.

A bit of digression, but can atmospheric warming have «stalled» because of the enormous emission of reflective aerosols from coal burning in China and India in the last decade or so?p class =» response» > [Response: In principle yes, but the evidence that more heat has gone into the ocean is very strong.

Since 2006, carbon - dioxide emissions have fallen more in the United States than in any other country, both because of the switch from coal to gas and because of increased energy efficiency driven by both regulation and market forces.

It is because so little energy is being used, and because alternatives are ruled out ab initio (the model contains no nuclear power, and no technology for storing away carbon emissions from fossil fuels; natural gas prices rise strongly and coal plants are retired well before they are clapped out) that the model ends up with such a high percentage of renewables; indeed given the premise it's slightly surprising it doesn't end up with even more.

Because lower rank coals have relatively high carbon dioxide emission factors, increased use of these coals caused the national average carbon dioxide emission factor to rise from 206.5 pounds per million Btu in 1980 to 207.6 pounds per million Btu in 1992.

That's worse even per joule / BTU of raw combustion energy because there's no hydrogen in coal, unlike oil and gas — all the energy comes from oxidization of carbon, resulting in greenhouse emissions.

Howarth's research is incomplete and has been criticized because at first he failed to figure in methane emissions from coal mining.

Because of coal's limited comeback in the last two years, U.S. carbon emissions from the energy sector have increased since 2012, notes the report.