Sentences with phrase «because energy infrastructure»

Further, because energy infrastructure lasts for decades, it is important not to lock in future emissions.

Not exact matches

While utilities have long discouraged energy storage by homeowners and industrial consumers because it threatens their revenue model, Brown says it makes a lot of sense, not just for enabling more renewable power but for lightening the load on old, creaky infrastructure.

While drilling in ANWR makes sense because Alaska has existing pipeline infrastructure in place, drilling off the East Coast does not, said John McNabb, former chairman and CEO of Willbros, one of the largest energy infrastructure contractors in the world.

Often when it does this it's because some of its data center infrastructure is in the same region as the clean energy farm.

Those energy sources are «good for the economy, good for business and good for our shareholders,» Google's senior vice president of technical infrastructure, Joe Kava, told The New York Times, in part because their costs have rapidly decreased in recent years.

This algorithm is crucial for ADA's infrastructure and its innovation in blockchain technology, because it eliminates the need for an energy - hungry proof of work protocol.

There is less of a chance that major energy infrastructure will be impacted, as it was with Harvey, because the storm is likely to pivot north.

DeFrancisco said New York has been viewed negatively because of high taxes, failing schools, infrastructure, the transportation system and high energy costs.

The Australian arm of Spanish infrastructure group Acciona, the world's largest renewable energy firm, has frozen about A$ 750 million of windfarm projects because of the stalemate, said local managing director Andrew Thomson.

Many communities would be better off investing in electric vehicles that run on batteries instead of hydrogen fuel cells, in part because the hydrogen infrastructure provides few additional energy benefits for the community besides clean transportation.

China would gain foreign investment and energy infrastructure, while the British firm could meet its environmental obligations at lower cost because credits earned overseas are often less expensive than reducing emissions at home.

While it will take a lot of funding and a multidimensional effort to address an issue that has become so ingrained in America's infrastructure, it's worth the time and energy because the future of America's children matters, and all students deserve to learn from teachers who reflect their population.

Yes, for the individual owner it maybe does, but that at the cost of the rest of the world, because electric energy still comes mostly from coal / oil / nuclear power generators for one, with correspondent pollution and infrastructure load.

With respect to the technology issue, this is of course going to be a moving target, because... AI, robots, and because... my oft - repeated point about lower population having non-linear declines in energy inputs, infrastructure requirements, and so on.

In other words, replacing coal with natural gas will not have much benefit until far down the road because building extra infrastructure requires energy which is currently supplied by carbon - intensive sources.

But the US far more so because of the massive economic boost in terms of jobs and much - needed infrastructure, as well as the critical need for longer term energy supply security.

Andersen: In your book, you argue that it would be impossible to transition away from fossil fuels quickly, because our current global - energy infrastructure simply can't be replaced within a single generation.

Through both carbon sequestration and avoided emissions (because water being retained by green infrastructure isn't needing energy intensive pumping and treatment), the plan is estimated to reduce CO2 by a total of 73,000 tons per year.

The energy that's needed to create this infrastructure would make the switch to renewable energy self - defeating, because the energy payback times of solar panels and wind turbines would increase six - or ten-fold.

Life could be prettier, healthier, and more harmonious because of an improved energy infrastructure, but this infrastructure needs to evolve via inspiration, NOT fear.

Such a hybrid infrastructure would lower the use of carbon fuels for the generation of electricity, because renewable energy can replace them if there is sufficient sun or wind available.

As Dunedinites, we each have a significant carbon footprint simply because of the carbon footprint and low energy efficiency of much of the city's infrastructure.

This echoes the common comparisons «climate hawks» make between clean energy and marriage equality in the United States, the latter of which was actually successful precisely because it did not require a rapid, global transformation of all global infrastructure, investment patterns, and consumption.

This could be because wealthier people tend to take more vacations, while better technology, such as what's found in countries with cleaner energy infrastructures, only weakly offset increasing emissions.

These geological formations are a safe and efficient means of storage because they tend to be close to existing energy infrastructure, which ultimately reduces costs to consumers.

And because the push for energy access involves long - term infrastructure investments, aiming too low has potentially harmful consequences.

«Kinder Morgan, the nation's biggest energy infrastructure company, dropped its plan for the Northeast Energy Direct project because of a lack of assurances that electricity ratepayers would pay for the $ 3.3 billion pipeline.&energy infrastructure company, dropped its plan for the Northeast Energy Direct project because of a lack of assurances that electricity ratepayers would pay for the $ 3.3 billion pipeline.&Energy Direct project because of a lack of assurances that electricity ratepayers would pay for the $ 3.3 billion pipeline.»

In April, Kinder Morgan, the nation's biggest energy infrastructure company, dropped its plan for the Northeast Energy Direct project because of a lack of assurances that electricity ratepayers would pay for the $ 3.3 billion pipenergy infrastructure company, dropped its plan for the Northeast Energy Direct project because of a lack of assurances that electricity ratepayers would pay for the $ 3.3 billion pipEnergy Direct project because of a lack of assurances that electricity ratepayers would pay for the $ 3.3 billion pipeline.

Because many of the innovations and breakthroughs that occur in energy are through real - world deployment, not lab R&D, like offshore wind turbines, concentrated solar power, and carbon capture and storage, what's required is not just a DARPA for energy but also investments in the enabling infrastructure and outright deployment in the real world.

Because the internet infrastructure grows and evolves so fast, results concerning its energy use are only applicable to the year under study.

Here's how Diane Leopold, president of the giant fracking company Dominion Energy, put it at a conference earlier this year: «It may be the most challenging» period in fossil fuel history, she said, because of «an increase in high - intensity opposition» to infrastructure projects that is becoming steadily «louder, better - funded, and more sophisticated.»

For example, because of infrastructure bottlenecks in the Northeast, New England's household energy prices are among the highest in the nation — with all six states ranking in the top 10 for the highest cost of energy.

District heating and cooling systems are an example of neighborhood - scale infrastructure that can improve energy efficiency because large plants are typically more efficient than building - based equipment.

This is because fossil fuel prices have been steadily rising but after the infrastructure is built prices would begin to fall for renewable energy due to the fact that raw materials are free.

A more resilient energy infrastructure: Because CHP systems produce power on site, they eliminate the need for transmission lines to get that electricity from the power plant to the customer and can keep the lights, heating and cooling on during a storm.

Because wind energy arrays do not require continual fuel inputs, upfront expenditures for turbines, foundations, and electrical infrastructure constitute nearly 75 % of total project costs (WindEurope 2016).

This is particularly the case because, absent environmental constraints, southern emissions would likely rise much more rapidly than those in the North, as the Souths citizens finally gained access to adequate energy services, built long - needed infrastructure, and, hopefully, moved toward rough economic parity with the North.

«With another decade of «business - as - usual» it becomes impractical to achieve the «alternative scenario» because of the energy infrastructure that would be in place,» says Hansen.

Because despite adding considerable electricity generation capacity in the last decade, India's energy supply is still not meeting its huge growing demand, and a lack of supply and infrastructure issues means the price of grid electricity is rapidly rising.

But renewable energy infrastructure is expanding because costs have reduced dramatically over the past decade and governments are starting to appreciate the benefits of a diversified and clean energy system.

«The next ten years will be crucial for all countries, including China and India, because of the rapid expansion of energy - supply infrastructure.

Because of the imbedded infrastructure we have created for ourselves, where we are distanced from our jobs, our resource sources, and our waste sites, we have huge imbedded / sunk energy requirements to survive, which will be very problematical in any rapid transition to quasi-sustainable living.

This public shaming of Amazon seems to have worked, because a few months later they announced «a long - term commitment to achieve 100 % renewable energy usage for our global infrastructure footprint.»

Pay attention, because this next one has some serious implications for energy and transportation policy, and infrastructure: According to research just published in the online edition of Science, rather than converting energy crops to liquid fuel for use in an internal combustion engine, it is far more efficient to convert them to electricity to power vehicles.

There are of course huge vested interests in the status quo — anyone who relies on anything from any infrastructure within a meter of mean sea level (this is almost everyone if you work it out), and yet you think that someone investing in solar energy, maybe just because they'd like to see it succeed means that nothing they say can be trusted?

But isn't climate change a much more difficult problem to solve because it ultimately involves transforming our energy infrastructure away from fossil fuels?