Sentences with phrase «better than fossil fuels»

More on the Greening Efforts of the Airline Industry World's Airlines Pledge to Cut Emissions 50 % by 2050 > Confirmed: Biofuels Better Than Fossil Fuels in Jet Engines - Scaling Them Up is the Major Problem Southwest Airlines Announces More Energy - Efficient Landings

Aviation Biofuel Confirmed: Biofuels Better Than Fossil Fuels in Jet Engines - Scaling Them Up is the Major Problem New Algae - Based Aviation Fuel Passes Key ASTM Tests for Jet Fuel KLM Schedules First Biofuel Test Flight with Passengers

These plant - based fuels were originally billed as better than fossil fuels because the carbon released when they were burned was balanced by the carbon absorbed when the plants grew.

Until indirect land use change is fully taken into account, Europe will continue to subsidise an alternative energy that is no better than the fossil fuels it is designed to replace.»

Confirmed: Biofuels Better Than Fossil Fuels in Jet Engines - Scaling Them Up is the Major Problem

However, even then, it was much better than fossil fuels.

Advocates say the carbon footprint of bioplastics is better than fossil fuel - derived alternatives, which is true, but as «Life Without Plastic» points out, there's the added issue of supporting genetically modified corn production, which currently provides most material for bioplastics.

Through various life cycle assessment studies (Searchinger et al, 2008; DeCicco et al, 2016) performed on annual bioenergy crops such as corn, it has been shown that they are not much better than fossil fuel energy sources in terms of climate and energy impacts.

Not exact matches

«Dominion's proposal to lock Virginians into decades of further dependence on harmful fossil fuels looks better suited for 1998 than 2018,» Kate Addleson, director of the Sierra Club Virginia Chapter, said in a statement.

Making Solar Cheaper Than Fossil Fuels In the long run, all this wrangling with utilities won't do Rive much good if he can't beat them on price.

THOMPSON: Another argument against switching to renewable energy is that there are fewer good jobs in clean energy than in fossil fuels.

Biofuels are widely considered a better environmental alternative than fossil fuels.

A Columbia University study linked greater proximity to fossil - fuel exhaust with greater learning disabilities in children — making them better candidates for jail than higher education.

The authors argue that the large emerging economies are clearly fuelling themselves with renewables and nuclear as well as, rather than instead of, fossil fuels, for various reasons, and that this will not change soon.

«When it comes to life cycle greenhouse gas emissions, wind and solar energy provide a much better greenhouse gas balance than fossil - based low carbon technologies, because they do not require additional energy for the production and transport of fuels, and the technologies themselves can be produced to a large extend with decarbonized electricity,» states Edgar Hertwich, an industrial ecologist from Yale University who co-authored the study.

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.

Nevertheless, «it's still better to heat with wood than to burn fossil fuels,» says Cherubini.

In India, Rogers discovered that carbon offset ventures were doing more harm than good because carbon offset money discourages certain countries from investing in wind or solar power and continues their reliance on fossil fuels.

To intentionally misquote Mr. McGuire in the»67 film The Graduate, «There's a great future in bioplastics,» but the problem is that some bioplastics can contain petro - based plastics as well, which might reduce the overall amount of fossil fuel - based plastics, while inadvertently creating more waste by allowing consumers to treat these bioplastics more casually than they do traditional plastics.

I agree with SA that, once the transition is well advanced, there's no reason why energy from renewable sources has to cost more than energy from fossil fuels, when all costs are counted.

All it demonstrates is that there is more than one causal factor, as is well known, with aerosols (from fossil fuels and volcanoes), land - use changes (through affecting CH$ and CO2 levels and albedo) and solar irradiance all playing a role.

Colin [# 6]-- this is certainly a good question, and you're absolutely right that the incoming solar flux is many times more than enough to replace fossil fuels.

But a good chunk of humanity will survive, and wind up using fusion powered hydrogen ramjets to reach the stars, rather than the vanishing fossil fuels.

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.

While the climate situation is far worse than most people think, the options for quickly phasing out fossil fuel and nuclear energy and replacing them with clean renewable energy sources are much better than most people think.

I suspect that we will be hearing a lot more about hydrogen cars too; the fossil fuel companies might well fund a fake «hydrogen economy» because the cheapest hydrogen is made by steam reforming of natural gas; people think that this is somehow better than just running a car on CNG.

And while it's easy to fill 100 «name here» slots on an ad questioning climate clarity, my guess is it'd be hard to find more than a handful of scientists working on the intertwined climate and energy challenges who would say that fossil - fueled business as usual is the best approach to getting humanity through its 21st - century growth spurt in great shape.

Just like the Europeans have managed to use 50 % less fossil fuels than we do to create their equally good lifestyles, Californians have lead the nation in living the good life on less electricity.

«Beneath Siberia's snow may lie geologic formations that hold vast deposits of fossil fuels, as well as mineral resources» as if they didn't have drills that get through ice and like Canada, prefer to work on ice than on mud.

Their critics say their stance, however well intentioned, will produce the real delays, given how much can be done now simply by cutting energy waste with tools already on the shelf — ranging from strengthening efficiency standards to eliminating billions of dollars in persistent fossil - fuel subsidies that continue to make coal and oil much cheaper than they really are when all their hidden costs are revealed.

what drivel... the timing couldnt be better (for Rs) when oil prices are sky high and here is AlGo, the quintessential hypocrite who burns more fossil fuels and consumes more power than most would in a lifetime, propgandizing to the opposite...

When energy consumers, like Japan's gov» t, decide that it's better to spend a bit more money on limitless and safe ethanol, solar, wind, water, or geothermal power than on limited and dangerous fossil fuels, then the energy industry will change because it must.

And recharging them via solar power is much better than using fossil fuel power from the grid.

d. Changing perceptions of the risks and benefits of nuclear power leads to increasing public support for nuclear > allows the NRC licensing process to be completely revamped and the culture of the organisation to be changed from «safety first» to an appropriate balance of all costs and risks, including the consequences of retarding nuclear development and rollout by making it too expensive to compete as well as it could if the costs were lower (e.g. higher fatalities per TWh if nuclear is not allowed to be cheaper than fossil fuels);

Recognise that nuclear is already 10 to 100 times safer than fossil fuels, therefore the regulation must be only what is required to give better, but tnho 10 to 100 times safer than what we already accept as sufficenlty safe.

It is not too late for the transition to a lower - carbon economy to be an orderly one, with fossil fuel companies steadily shrinking overall but delivering the best results for their shareholders by focusing on value rather than volume.

Less well known is the immense potential of soils to act as vast carbon sinks, with the ability to «naturally turn over about 10 times more greenhouse gas on a global scale than the burning of fossil fuels.»

With the climate crisis escalating, no state is better positioned than Washington to demonstrate that the transition to fossil fuel - free electricity powering zero - emission vehicles is technically possible, economically viable, and a key driver for new jobs and economic growth.

The best yield comes from soybeans, but they, too, are a net loser, requiring 27 percent more fossil energy than the biodiesel fuel produced.

when it came to tracking and exposing the less - than - good intentions of climate deniers and the fossil fuel companies propping them up.

Biomass can be a renewable resource and can be a better option than fossil fuels like oil, gas, and coal.

In a well - sourced investigation subtitled «From the Carolina Coast to the Kochs,» The Independent Weekly, a paper in Durham, North Carolina, noted that there was more than a whiff of fossil fuel barons and real estate interests in the sea level deniers» crusade.

The fossil fuel companies will pass the cost on to customers, but the person doing better than average in limiting fossil fuel use will make money.

Summing up the lack of forward planning about wind turbines physicists and environmental activist, John Droz, jr, warns, «just because a power source is an alternative, or a renewable, does NOT automatically mean that it is better than any conventional or fossil fuel source.»

For countries everywhere, particularly developing ones, the economic good news is that the Plan B energy economy is much more labor - intensive than the fossil - fuel - based economy it is replacing.

Most Americans can correctly identify carbon dioxide as a gas created by the burning of fossil fuels (68 %), and a similar share, 65 %, recognize that a comparison or control group is a better method for testing the effectiveness of a new drug than simply giving the drug to a single group.

The analyses published in Nordhaus (2008)[2] show the «cost competitive alternative to fossil fuels» policy (called «Low - cost backstop policy») is far better than the «Optimal carbon price» policy.

It stresses the good, such as «we will use and generate only renewable energy,» rather than the more commonly stated less bad; «we will reduce our use of fossil fuels.»

It is reasonable to assume that human CO2 emissions will continue to grow at a slightly higher level than population, despite the fact that there is considerable pressure on fossil fuels (economic as well as environmental) and the carbon efficiency of all nations is continuously improving (especially in the developed nations).

But it is good reason to find an even cheaper source of energy than fossil fuel.