The true fact of the matter is that utilities are
burning less coal because gas is cheaper, and likely will be for some time.
Many coal - fired power stations are
burning less coal because of wind farms.
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!
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.
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.
Seems to me that it would be more reliable to manufacture wind turbines and start to
burn less coal and oil...
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.
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.
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.
China's stated ambition is to
burn less coal in coming years than it has in the past.
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.
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.
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.
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..