Sentences with phrase «burn less coal»

Supercritical stations burn less coal per megawatt - hour produced and so benefit the environment and the electricity consumer.A modern, highly efficient, supercritical coal - fired station with stack gas cleanup is very clean indeed, essentially emitting only water vapor, carbon dioxide and nitrogen.

If we can get another megawatt - hour of electricity out of every tonne of coal we burn, that means we need burn less coal to get the same amount of electricity.

China's stated ambition is to burn less coal in coming years than it has in the past.

But if anyone can point me to evidence that China plans to burn less coal in the long run on the basis of greenhouse concerns, I'd be happy to highlight that.

Even solar is thwarted because it would mean that we might need to burn less coal since a cetain amount of energy would be produced by solar.

It was then used to power very big and inefficient steam engines that pumped water out of mines; when James Watt developed his steam engine that used 75 percent less coal than the Newcomen engine it replaced, the common thinking was that the increased efficiency meant that they would burn less coal.

Seems to me that it would be more reliable to manufacture wind turbines and start to burn less coal and oil...

Jiang of the Energy Research Institute said that in 2014, for example, China burned less coal in total.

Even though these newer steam engines burned less coal, the proliferation of steam engines throughout the coal - fired British Empire erased any energy savings.

Even though these newer steam engines burned less coal, the proliferation of steam engines throughout the coal - fired British Empire erased any energy savings.

And if the climate movement can keep pressuring the the government, banks and universities to invest in the future and divest from fossil fuels, it seems inevitable that we'll be burning less coal in the coming years, whether President Obama has officially waged a War on Coal or not.

While Americans are burning less coal, Asian demand is booming, so if companies can find a way to export their excess supply, it's a win - win for their dwindling profit margins!

At the moment, reduced shipping from the US is unlikely to mean that China burns less coal, because China has invested heavily in coal - burning powerplants.

Many coal - fired power stations are burning less coal because of wind farms.

The true fact of the matter is that utilities are burning less coal because gas is cheaper, and likely will be for some time.

Not exact matches

Quite simply, the world will be burning less oil, less coal, and maybe even less natural gas.

«Burning coals on enemies» head» is not correct for the text did not talk about more or less coals.

The coal boom of the early century is turning to bust as China burns less and renewables slowly take over new investment.

And burning natural gas releases 43 percent less CO2 than burning coal.

Exxon Mobil also touted its status as the United States» No. 1 natural gas producer, noting that gas emits significantly less CO2 than coal when burned to generate electricity.

Natural gas, which is mainly methane, may generate less carbon dioxide than oil and coal when burned, but as recent research has found, there's more to greenhouse gas emissions than just combustion.

By adopting lighting technologies that use less energy the nations of the world will cut down on the fossil fuels, often coal, burned to produce that light.

At a cost of less than 3 cents per kilowatt - hour, tornado energy is cheaper than burning coal (which rings up at 4 or 5 cents per kwh) and produces no additional greenhouse gases.

Although natural gas generates less greenhouse gas than coal when burned, when its total life - cycle emissions associated with extraction and distribution are factored in, it does not seem much cleaner than coal

Ironically, if the world burns significantly less coal, that would lessen CO2 emissions but also reduce aerosols in the atmosphere that block the sun (such as sulfate particulates), so we would have to limit CO2 to below roughly 405 ppm.

So it would cost less to insulate every home than to burn coal to provide the energy now used to heat and cool uninsulated houses.

With more money for development of novel designs and public financial support for construction — perhaps as part of a clean energy portfolio standard that lumps in all low - carbon energy sources, not just renewables or a carbon tax — nuclear could be one of the pillars of a three - pronged approach to cutting greenhouse gas emissions: using less energy to do more (or energy efficiency), low - carbon power, and electric cars (as long as they are charged with electricity from clean sources, not coal burning).

It hopes to make less use of coal - burning stations and more of combined - cycle gas - turbine stations.

Keeping in mind the enormous stake that panel members ExxonMobil and Shell have in the oil, natural gas and coal industries, here is a look at the panel's take on why oil and coal have been so difficult to replace by the following alternative energy sources: Natural gas ExxonMobil favors boosting the U.S.'s consumption of natural gas, in part, because it produces at least 50 percent less greenhouse gas per hour when burned compared with coal, Nazeer Bhore, ExxonMobil senior technology advisor, said during the panel.

Even China's efforts to combat those rising concentrations — in part by switching from burning coal to capturing the power latent in rivers like the Yangtze — falter in the face of global warming, as a result of less water in those rivers due to drought and the dwindling glaciers of the Tibetan Plateau.

Cleaner coal - burning technologies would reduce emissions not only of greenhouse gases but also of soot and other by - products that cause local and regional pollution — and they could prove to be easier or less expensive to implement.

The DOE is asking Congress for $ 407 million to research how to burn coal most efficiently, along with $ 241 million to demonstrate such carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies — at least $ 900 million less than DOE said it would have cost to complete FutureGen.

Though burning natural gas produces much less greenhouse gas emissions than burning coal, a new study indicates switching over coal - fired power plants to natural gas would have a negligible effect on the changing climate.

Natural gas produces less than half the carbon dioxide of coal when burned.

Asia is now burning a billion tons of coal each year, causing air pollution that is reaching the United States in less than a week.

The investigators found that — pound for pound — particles from coal burning contribute about five times more to the risk of death from heart disease than other air pollution particles of the same size — less than one ten - thousandth of an inch in diameter (known as PM 2.5).

Sooty air from coal burning triggered the initial melting of the mountain glaciers in the European Alps in the second half of the 19th Century when it caused the snow to turn grey and so reflect less sunlight back into space, scientists said.

Since cooking and eating are primary functions of life and cooking fires are small I would be less critical about them then about gross coal burning generators and bad cars and trucks and so many planes.

Peak coal may be a lot closer than most people think, especially if we go into gasification or liquefying, which take considerable energy leaving less net energy gain than if we just burn the coal directly.

Now what we can do is 1) develop a sustainable energy economy 2) a) burn all the coal and other fossil fuels, buying us, if we make optimistic assumptions, perhaps a century of ever more elaborate schemes to meet energy needs with less and less suitable sources b) THEN in a severely degraded environment

Because switching from coal to cleaner and more affordable energy would result in less coal mined, less coal burned, and less carbon pollution emitted, BLM's decisions do have a climate impact — and a big one at that.

All and all have there not been less injuries associated with nuclear energy than those resulting from coal mining and exposure to air contaminants from burning coal?

That coal happens to be so dirty of a fuel source makes the decision to burn less of it easy, as unfortunate as that may be for people that have earned their livings mining and burning coal.

The decline in coal - related emissions is due mainly to utilities using less coal for electricity generation as they burned more low - priced natural gas.

Since the countries with low cost power are burning coal while the countries with high cost power are using less CO2 intensive energy supplies, the net result is a gobal increase in CO2.

Power generators are turning away from coal for a host of reasons: In some instances natural gas is cheaper; many states are requiring utilities to generate a certain portion of electricity from renewable resources; individual cities (and even an entire Canadian province) have decided to stop purchasing electricity created by burning coal; and new Environmental Protection Agency regulations are making it more expensive and less economical to use coal plants.

The upshot is that existing coal plants are being used less across major coal - burning economies.

Based on scientific observations, we should burn more coal not less.

Oil is especially useful due to its portability (I don't expect coal - burning cars to come on the market any time soon), so I wouldn't expect the drop in oil consumption to be made up for with other lesser fossil fuels.

The 2009 State of the Climate report gives these top indicators: humans emitted 30 billion tons of of CO2 into the atmosphere each year from the burning of fossil fuels (oil, coal, and natural gas), less oxygen in the air from the burning of fossil fuels, rising fossil fuel carbon in corals, nights warming faster than days, satellites show less of the earth's heat escaping into space, cooling of the stratosphere or upper atmosphere, warming of the troposphere or lower atmosphere, etc..