Sentences with phrase «burning more electricity»

This results into using high - end expensive hardware and burning more electricity.

Not exact matches

Newer SAGD plants such as Connacher Oil and Gas's Great Divide have managed to nearly eliminate fresh water use — they use non-potable water from aquifers and recycle it — and reduce GHG emissions by about 20 % compared to the industry average through more efficient burning of natural gas, cogeneration of electricity and reduced heat loss on the steam's journey underground.

«While more remains to be done to optimize our electricity system — building transmission lines to carry more clean power to those jurisdictions still burning fossil fuels, investing in smarter grids in our towns and cities, bringing more clean power online — these regulations create a foundation as we transition to clean energy and an economy built to last.»

These projects are unnecessary, the region doesn't need to store more propane and the incinerator is about burning other people's garbage, not producing electricity.

The 1.9 - megawatt array is anticipated to produce nearly 3 million kilowatt hours of electricity annually, avoiding the greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to burning 2.4 million pounds of coal or more than 5,000 barrels of oil each year.

«I think coal is at a very low place right now,» Barnett said in an interview, noting that coal has lost about 10 percent of its market share for electricity generation as more utilities convert their plants to burn natural gas.

The sentence marked with an asterisk was changed from «In fact, fly ash — a by - product from burning coal for power — and other coal waste contains up to 100 times more radiation than nuclear waste» to «In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant — a by - product from burning coal for electricity — carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy.»

Even the oil sands ultimate consumption in a gasoline, diesel or jet engine only results in 500 kilograms of CO2 - equivalent per barrel of refined petroleum products, meaning total oil sands emissions from well to wheel are considerably lower than those of this nation's more than 500 power plants burning coal to generate electricity.

Burning coal produces more than half the country's electricity, despite its immense human and environmental costs.

The reason: it requires extra energy to turn the coal to gas and then to capture the CO2 as well — in effect requiring the burning of more coal to generate the same amount of electricity.

If not, such so - called offsets aren't displacing the emissions from fossil fuel burning, they're simply adding more electricity to the overall system.

The Department of Energy estimated in May 2007 that a new power plant burning pulverized coal and equipped with amine scrubbers to capture 90 percent of the CO2 would make electricity at a cost of more than $ 114 per megawatt - hour (compared with just $ 63 per MWh without CO2 capture).

From the atmosphere's point of view, growing biomass to burn in a power plant and using the electricity to move a car avoids 10 tons of carbon dioxide emissions per acre, or 108 percent more emission offsets than ethanol.

Dutch scientists have a use for all the carbon dioxide that pours from the chimneys of fossil fuel - burning power stations: Harvest it for even more electricity

It's far more efficient to burn the biomass for electricity and then use the electricity in cars.»

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).

Natural gas might still have an advantage over coal when burned to create electricity, because gas - fired power plants tend to be newer and far more efficient than older facilities that provide the bulk of the country's coal - fired generation.

The Stanford scientists suggested roofs covered in photovoltaic panels would do a better job, by producing electricity that then obviates the need for more fossil fuel — burning power plants.

Concerns over climate change have encouraged governments and consumers to demand that electricity is decarbonised — which means no more burning of coal and gas wherever possible.

The relatively low growth is linked to both the adoption of more fuel - efficient vehicles and the replacement of coal - powered electricity with renewable energy sources and relatively cleaner - burning natural gas.

Secondly, not only is that coal becoming more costly to mine, we have to burn more of it in order to generate an equal amount of electricity this year than we did last year.

â $ œSecondly, not only is that coal becoming more costly to mine, we have to burn more of it in order to generate an equal amount of electricity this year than we did last year.

That means, for a coal plant, we'd have to burn — and so pay for — an extra 10 - 40 % more coal with CCS than we would without it, and the electricity from that extra energy / coal consumed is not available to consumers for electricity.

Everyone knows that it's electricity that keeps our lights burning, laptops glowing, and televisions buzzing, but knowing exactly what electricity is, how it's produced, and how it ends up in your home may be more difficult.

Because nine of every 10 tons of the nation's coal vanishes into power plants, many Americans hold the illusion that coal is no longer a major energy player, but here's the reality: Coal produces at least half of the nation's electricity, and we're burning more of...

I was astonished to learn that the United States burns more than a billion tons of coal a year, mostly to generate electricity.

Burning the biomass directly in a power plant and then using the electricity to drive your car is a more efficient solution that is ready today.

We still use electricity, businesses find it possible to make money, lights burn in homes when needed, in fact all sorts of things prove possible in spite of the dour predictions of Cassandras in other places more amenable to needless consumption.

An important question that political and climate analysts will be examining is how much bite is in the regulations — meaning how much they would curb emissions beyond what's already happening to cut power plant carbon dioxide thanks to the natural gas boom, the shutdown of old coal - burning plants because of impending mercury - cutting rules (read the valuable Union of Concerned Scientists «Ripe for Retirement» report for more on this), improved energy efficiency and state mandates developing renewable electricity supplies.

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.

Power plants that burn natural gas are also usually more efficient at converting fuel into electricity (i.e., they have a lower heat rate) than coal - fired power plants.

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 burden of any plan to regulate carbon dioxide emissions would have fallen most heavily on coal - burning power plants, which still account for more than 50 percent of the electricity generated in the United States.

The United States in 2040 will be more energy self - sufficient, a net energy exporter and a lower source of energy - related carbon emissions as clean - burning natural gas becomes the dominant fuel for generating electricity.

Even with today's power plants emitting greenhouse gases, the overall levels would be reduced because the entire process of moving a car one mile is more efficient using electricity than producing gasoline and burning it in a car's engine.

U.S. coal peaked a few years ago in terms of BTU (heat value) per pound — meaning that we need to burn more coal for the same amount of heat / electricity.

An analysis by the American Solar Energy Society indicates that burning cellulosic crops to directly generate electricity is much more efficient than converting them to ethanol.

Trump's push to roll back the Clean Power Plan, for instance, could prompt electricity generators to burn more coal.

Last year the Energy Information Administration noted that 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.»

After all, the country burns more coal than five years ago, has some of the highest household electricity bills in the developed world and will miss its 2020 greenhouse gas emission targets.

A new study shows that burning crops such as corn and switchgrass to create electricity to power electric vehicles would actually yield more transportation miles than turning those crops into ethanol.

Green energy fact: if we put all green energy subsidies together in one - dollar bills and burn them, we could generate more electricity than has been produced by subsidized green energy

It deals with pipelines within the state that would connect customers who currently don't have access to natural gas for heating and cooking (a more efficient use of energy than burning gas for electricity to perform the same functions).

97 A third report published in Science indicates that burning cellulosic crops directly to generate electricity to power electric cars yields 81 percent more transport miles than converting the crops into liquid fuel.

We are producing and burning more natural gas for electricity, while reducing coal use.

More electricity means more coal and natural gas burning, which, according to green dogma, means more greenhouse gas emissions and global warmMore electricity means more coal and natural gas burning, which, according to green dogma, means more greenhouse gas emissions and global warmmore coal and natural gas burning, which, according to green dogma, means more greenhouse gas emissions and global warmmore greenhouse gas emissions and global warming.

Even more fossil fuels are also burnt in electricity power stations to generate electricity and heat homes.

Commenting on agreements reached on the Internal Electricity regulation, Molly Walsh said «Today EU governments have made the fossil fuel industry proud, by locking us into decades more of burning fossil fuels.

Goodnight Al as you burn up more electricity than the average small town on a daily basis.

According to the 2010 report, «Impact of EPA Rules on Power Markets,» by Credit Suisse, tougher federal air pollution rules that will be coming in the next few years could prompt electricity companies to close as many as 1 in every 5 coal - burning power plants in America, primarily facilities more than 40 years old that lack emissions controls.