Sentences with phrase «building out of the fossil fuels»

Well - respected people like Martin Holladay of Green Building Advisor have dismissed my edible building proposition but the more time I spend on this subject, the more convinced I become that we have to stop building out of the fossil fuels which are needed to make cement, to fire bricks, to make plastics and many types of insulation and that we have to substitute cellulose from trees whenever it is possible.

Not exact matches

Turns out, $ 750 million worth of State money is going to SolarCity to build solar panels, which will presumably be in high demand as the nation transfers away from fossil fuels and towards renewable energy sources.

Beth Newcomer The Legislative Analyst for NYC Council Member Helen Rosenthal (District 6, Upper West Side) encouraged attendees to reach out to their local Council Members and urge them to support the following legislative initiatives: • Possible legislation regarding divestment of the city's pension funds from fossil fuel companies • A bill to require the city to do a carbon footprint analysis of all the products the city procures, and to use that analysis to inform a policy of low - carbon operations • A number of bills to reduce the carbon emissions of city - owned vehicles and improve the sustainability of city buildings • A bill to enhance the city's already - strong idling laws so as to make them easier to enforce Find your Council Member here.

Building out the full renewable energy system in New York in the next 15 years will create 4.5 million jobs while lowering electric rates to half of what fossil and nuclear fuels will cost in the next decade, according to a recent study by Cornell and Stanford researchers.

But as Kurt E. Yeager, former president of the Electric Power Research Institute in Palo Alto, Calif., points out, such standards «aren't worth the paper they're written on until we have a power system, a grid, that is capable of assimilating that intermittent energy without having to build large quantities of backup power, fossil - fueled, to enable it.»

Despite the renewables building boom, such geothermal, wind and solar projects still do not crowd out fossil fuel — fired generation in the energy mix of, for example, the utility Pacific Gas & Electric.

On one side are the world's industrialized nations, which largely built their wealth through a century of fossil - fuel combustion; on the other, those seeking a path out of poverty that, for the moment, has to depend on the same energy sources, and in many cases also on clearing forests.

But Obama faces a reality that many of these groups seem slow to recognize: While the 20th - century toolkit preferred by traditional environmentalists — litigation, regulation and legislation — remains vital to limiting domestic pollution risks such as the oil gusher, it is a bad fit for addressing the building human influence on the climate system, which is driven now mainly by a surge in emissions mostly outside United States borders in countries aiming to propel their climb out of poverty on the same fossil fuels that generated much of our affluence.

The incident illustrates the importance of sweating the details if your goal is to build societal support for the grand challenge of getting out of our fossil - fueled comfort zone and de-carbonizing the fast - growing global energy system.

«It turns out, to get on a trajectory to hit 450 ppm, we're going to need to turn off most of our fossil fuel energy, end deforestation, and build about 11.5 new terawatts of clean energy capacity by 2033 (30 years out from the 2003 baseline).»

that «Human combustion of fossil fuels is significantly causing that climate change» is also true, then many, perhaps most, people will accept that there is a need to «reduce greenhouse gas emissions and build out clean energy» even if it will «cost consumers money, decrease energy security and destroy jobs».

Nuclear defenders are calling for keeping things in perspective — fossil fuels, they point out, have many more costs and risks associated with them than nuclear power; and newer generation reactor designs are far safer than those built in Japan many decades ago (a number of US plants from the same era have the same or similar designs).

When fossil fuel runs out, will it be possible to use the relative trickle of energy which comes from wind turbines and solar panels to mine and fabricate the raw materials necessary to build more solar panels and more wind turbines?

To me this would appear to be a worst case scenario, based on the least developed economies building up energy infrastructures largely using fossil fuels, in order to pull their populations out of poverty, as China and India are doing today (thereby reducing their rate of population growth as they become more affluent and improving their carbon efficiencies) and the remaining societies continuing to improve their overall carbon efficiencies as they have already been doing.

The bad news is that according to Chancellor Merkel, 10 — 20 GW of new fossil fuel power plants need to be built in order to facilitate the nuclear phase - out.

• Kyoto Protocol • EU ETS • Australian CO2 tax and ETS • Mandating and heavily subsidising ($ / TWh delivered) renewable energy • Masses of inappropriate regulations that have inhibited the development of nuclear power, made it perhaps five times more expensive now than it should be, slowed its development, slowed its roll out, caused global CO2 emissions to be 10 % to 20 % higher now than they would otherwise have been, meaning we are on a much slower trajectory to reduce emissions than we would be and, most importantly, we are locked in to fossil fuel electricity generation that causes 10 to 100 times more fatalities per TWh than would be the case if we allowed nuclear to develop (or perhaps 1000 times according to this: http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html • Making building regulations that effectively prevent people from selling, refurbishing or updating their houses if they are close to sea level (the damage to property values and to property owners» life savings is enormous as many examples in Australia are already demonstrating.

Even in the aggressive IEA 450 pathway, the build - out of CCS is making only a small dent, compared to the scale of the fossil fuel emissions.

As another MSNBC commentator, Chris Hayes, points out, the stance of Obama and others, that they are against global warming but for the building of new pipelines, are the protestations of fossil fuel addicts, who haven't yet confronted their addiction.

Student and academic pressure to get out of fossil fuels is building across the sector.

The present most rapid pathway for carbon emissions reductions involves an urgent build - out of renewable and non-carbon based energy systems to replace all fossil fuels with a focus on wind, solar, and electrical vehicle economies of scale and production chains.

There's a building storm of indignation out there among those literate in science — who have gone from depression and despair at the tsunami of fossil fueled ignorance that's passed for reporting and discussion of climate issues, — to real resolve, and a willingness to fight back, not just for the planet, but for the very idea that objective truth exists, and that science is a tool to find it.

The biggest issue, Cohen and Jacobson agree, is motivating governments to take on the enormous challenge of phasing out cheap and abundant fossil fuels — and building a cleaner energy supply for the planet.

At this price, coal fired, gas fired and biomass generation is priced out of the market, so to ensure that at least some new gas - fired capacity is built, the agency is introducing separate categories — allowing fossil fuel and biomass plants to bid against each other, while wind projects compete in a separate auction.

That is why they are building the crap out of coal and stock piling other people's fossil fuels.

Instead, you build a wall between that information and the public, built entirely out of a very powerful emotion: anger, toward «denier scientists» who shill for fossil fuel companies in a massive, sinister disinformation campaign.

They did not do this out of fear of dirty fossil fuels, climate change and rising seas, rather they built windmills to generate electricity.

It has nothing to do with the amount of carbon embedded in the construction of the house, so one could theoretically build it out of insulated concrete forms, one of the most carbon and fossil fuel intensive forms of construction, and still qualify.

We Need to Phase Out Fossil Fuels, Quickly & Regardless of Cost - It's the Moral Thing to Do Slavery wasn't abolished, either in the United States nor in Great Britain, because a more economically efficient way of plowing, planting and picking produce was developed, not a better method of keeping houses clean, or building, or... or anything.

The solar build - out represented 38 % of all the net new generating capacity added (renewable, fossil fuel and nuclear) last year.