Sentences with phrase «burning coal»

Enthusiasm for burning coal has waned in recent years due to climate regulations and efforts to combat air pollution.

... In the late 1980s, there was a sense of the new about the greenhouse effect, even though scientists had been positing since the 1890s that heat - trapping gases, particularly carbon dioxide released by burning coal and other focal fuels could raise global temperatures.

In 2008, five million cubic yards of coal ash, a toxic by - product of burning coal, spilled from the Kingston Fossil Plant in Tennessee into the surrounding wealthy community.

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.

Although in and of itself, as Revkin points out, this won't really reduce greenhouse gas emissions as long as so much of our electricity is generated by burning coal, it is at least a doable step in the right direction that reduces our reliance on oil from antagonistic regimes.

So, coal operations such as mining, logistics, and so forth can become as efficient and low - carbon as they want to be, but that will still leave the central and huge problem unaddressed: Burning coal itself generates carbon dioxide.

So burning coal was outlawed in Ankara, and we imported lots and lots of biogas from the then Soviet Union.

Steven Davis of the University of California, Irvine, and Robert Socolow of Princeton (best known for his work dividing the climate challenge into carbon «wedges») have written «Commitment accounting of CO2 emissions,» a valuable new paper in Environmental Research Letters showing the value of shifting from tracking annual emissions of carbon dioxide from power plants to weighing the full amount of carbon dioxide that such plants, burning coal or gas, could emit during their time in service.

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?

We can not ignore the enormous impact that mining and burning coal will have on our climate, and with last week's decision, it's clear that the BLM and Forest Service can't either.

By preventing private companies from mining and burning coal from federal lands, BLM can better protect our climate and public health, the waters we use, the air we breathe, and the wild places we enjoy.

Mr. Obama has a plan to build five power plants burning coal but capturing emissions (see below) to help limit the greenhouse impact from electrical generation.

If burning coal causes the flooding of coastal fishing villiges or, as I believe, the flooding of entire coastal regions by violent storm and encroaching seas — ala New Orleans and Bangladesh — people are not only displaced, they die.

... the only way to consider new coal - fired plants a remotely plausible undertaking is to completely ignore the social costs of burning the coal.

It also makes economic sense: All those reservoirs filling up with coal ash day after day are just problems waiting to happen, and if we're just waiting for catastrophes to happen before we do something, the true cost of burning coal isn't being internalized properly; local citizens and people downstream of those rivers end up paying for it with their health and by losing their local environment (what if your family house was buried in potentially toxic sludge?).

The tool is useful for getting a better sense of how industry and our power sector contribute to climate change — and serves as a useful reminder that the U.S. still gets 50 % of its energy by burning coal, the chief source of carbon emissions worldwide.

He has warned that if all the world's countries fail by 2030 to move away from burning coal for power (at least without capturing the emitted CO2), it will be impossible to avoid a long slide toward Earth becoming «a different planet» from the one human societies have experienced for thousands of years.

Human generated heat (e.g. the actual heat from burning coal or uranium) is not what's important — and that number is indeed insignificant next to the amounts in question.

But this is silly, since the atmospheric lifetime of aerosols is just a matter of days, so once we stop burning coal, as we eventually must, the aerosols disappear quickly, unmasking the pent - up warming due to all the extra CO2 we emitted by not switching from coal to natural gas.

In China, burning coal is the biggest contributor to poor air quality.

There's no parallel Earth without burning coal, oil, and forests, so the classical method of running a controlled experiment is impossible.

Not only does Q fail to consider the carbon to be released by burning coal but he also totally ignores the tar sands, oil shales, and heavy oils that are being targeted to supplement remaining oil supplies.

Similarly, we should note that many of Britain's power stations have switched from burning coal to burning trees — hardly a step up in the climate fight.

Warming caused by burning coal in a power plant can be felt in the atmosphere within 95 days — the time it takes for the emissions released from the plant to trap enough heat to exceed the amount generated from the plant itself, according to the study.

A good solution, of course, would be to stop burning coal, but until that happens, other solutions are needed and designer Daan Roosegaarde may have come up with a revolutionary idea.

Reason number one why we have to keep burning coal: you can't base a power grid off of efficiency and renewables alone and natural gas is expensive.

The Kyoto protocol helps to address this by imposing a kind of extra cost on burning coal, but there is the problem that it this cost is applied non-uniformly.

They might not make accurate estimates of economies of scale of solar and wind collection devices in the SimCity computer model, or fully account for incidental costs of burning coal.

, 2) all of that SO2 production (largely from burning coal) is inextricably linked to the emission of large quantities of CO2, and is the fertilization effect even sufficient to mitigate for that CO2?

Burning coal is not the proper way to extract energy from coal.

Renewable electricity is cleaner and healthier than burning coal, something easily googled.

China's plan to build millions of electric vehicles will have little impact on the country's carbon dioxide emissions, a new analysis concludes, because so much of the country's electricity is produced by burning coal.

A. For a single molecule of CO2 released from the burning of a pound of carbon, say from burning coal, the time required is 3 - 4 years.

A profit making private company not only has no reason to avoid burning coal, it in some sense has an obligation to burn coal if that produces the greatest profit without breaking any laws.

As long as the fast - growing developing countries burning the coal are not stemming emissions (and I don't count on that any time soon), this — to my mind — reveals the hollow nature of the E.U. and Kyoto approach.

A good solution to China's horrific smog problem would be to stop burning coal, of course, but until that happens, other solutions are needed and designer Daan Roosegaarde may have come up with a revolutionary idea.

That conventional view could change in a world where the full cost of burning coal is high and gas is cheap.

One grand, overarching myth not discussed by Plumer is that the kind of solar technology produced by companies like Solyndra can play a substantial role in blunting the buildup of greenhouse gases driven largely by burning coal and oil.

«The pollution from burning coal and from the coal that is extracted here affects people all over the world.»

«That's an amount that exceeds the most dire outlook for emissions from burning coal and oil and related activities as projected by [IPCC]... in 2007.

# 56: As an addition to your list of the non-positives of nuclear energy, it is my understanding that the CO2 generated through the enrichment processes of uranium (and mining and transportation) is roughly equivalent to the CO2 released by burning coal.

1bbb: Coal ashes and cinders contain so much uranium and thorium that more energy goes into coal cinders and ash in the form of uranium and thorium than you get by burning the coal.

Human beings have overpopulated the Earth far beyond its natural carrying capacity, and is essentially sustained by burning coal, oil, gas and uranium.

«You could pension off all the 80,000 workers in the coal industry for a tiny fraction of the medical bills due to burning coal,» says Burton Richter, a Nobel laureate in physics.

Emissions of the main human - generated greenhouse gas are surely tracking the reversal in electricity output, given that the vast majority of the country's electricity comes from burning coal.

Burning coal for electricity is the main reason the world has a CO2 problem.

The central challenge is that the world's powers, both the established ones and the emerging giants, China and India, face ballooning energy appetites, a finite atmosphere, and no menu of affordable energy sources — yet — that can substitute on a large scale for burning coal and oil.

And I agree that burning coal at all should be phased out completely.

China's industrial growth hinges on burning coal from mines like this one in Shenmu, Shaanxi Province, behind a village store.

Not only does burning coal release an enormous amount of carbon dioxide, mining it releases methane.