Sentences with phrase «better than burning coal»

According to industry experts, if coal loses out in utilities» decisions on what to build, it would be because the economics of burning gas are simply better than burning coal.

Not exact matches

But for those who oppose fracking, there is this: Burning the natural gas produced by fracking may be much better for the environment and public health, over the long run, than burninBurning the natural gas produced by fracking may be much better for the environment and public health, over the long run, than burningburning coal.

Even the oil sands ultimate consumption in a gasoline, diesel or jet engine only results in 500 kilograms of CO2 - equivalent per barrel of refined petroleum products, meaning total oil sands emissions from well to wheel are considerably lower than those of this nation's more than 500 power plants burning coal to generate electricity.

Yet, even if every planned reactor in China was to be built, the country would still rely on burning coal for more than 50 percent of its electric power — and the Chinese nuclear reactors would provide at best roughly the same amount of energy to the developing nation as does the existing U.S. fleet.

«China's central and western regions are rich in coal, and their environmental capacity is better than the Beijing - Hebei - Tianjin region, so we are encouraging them to develop coal - to - gas and to replace coal burning in eastern regions.»

They eventually linked the mysterious pollution to a nearby natural - gas field, and their investigation has now produced the first hard evidence that the cleanest - burning fossil fuel might not be much better than coal when it comes to climate change.

Even if all of your power comes from coal (and most of us get at least some portion of our electric from hydroelectric dams, nuclear power, wind, or solar) you still are putting the environment in a better position than burning gas.

Peer - reviewed studies have raised concerns about how much methane is leaking throughout the production and transmission of natural gas, casting doubt on whether it really is better for global warming than coal, which burns 50 percent more carbon than natural gas.

Well, coal burning has released more radiation into the environment by far than nuclear has.

Conclusion Yep, in the long - run grannie (and her grandchildren too) are * FAR * better - off embracing photovoltaics than coal - burning... better off economically... better off scientifically... better off ecologically... better off morally!

Natural gas does emit less GHG than coal on a per Btu basis when burned, but the analysis assumes there are no methane leaks from both conventional and unconventional wells.

The rise of shale gas has had an environmental benefit as well — greatly reduced carbon dioxide emissions, because generating electricity by burning natural gas emits less than half as much carbon dioxide as burning coal.

In the rapidly urbanizing «third» world, that property, as well as exploitation of a local rather than an imported energy source, is driving its use and avoiding of some of the effects from coal burning in and around many Asian urban centers much in the news lately.

They are counter-productive, continuing a political debate that the consensus is unable to win, instead of focusing on the real issue at hand — if this planet is going to consume six times more energy than today in sixty years, we had best take steps to make sure that energy isn't derived from burning coal.

Which makes me a bit torn on this one: While biomass electric generation is certainly a good thing, and anything that gets us (the collective human we) away from burning coal is undeniably positive environmentally, it seems to me that there is a better solution than processing wood pellets in Florida and shipping them to the EU to generate power... Even if it appears from Green Circle's estimate of net energy gain comes out positive.

The study, which was published in the prestigious journal the American Economic Review, caused quite a stir in green circles, and for good reason — the authors found that mining and burning coal actually imposes more costs on the economy than the value it creates by generating power.

As a bit of black humor (pun intended), here's evidence that coal burning can emit more radiation than well run nuclear 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.

Though it's certainly true that hydropower is a better option than profligate burning of coal for China, surely there are more eco-friendly ways to tap into China's world - leading hydropower resources than continued building of large - scale dams.