Sentences with phrase «clean coal and nuclear»

And, yes, we're going to have to examine how do we make clean coal and nuclear power work.

«They are pretending to be good guys by doing clean coal and nuclear, but they are also funding Willie Soon to erase the entire problem,» Davies said.

Not exact matches

The whole thing started in 2015, when Stanford professor Mark Jacobson and some colleagues published a paper arguing that, by mid-century, the United States could be powered entirely by clean energy sources — and by clean, he meant the really clean stuff (wind, solar, hydropower), not the only - somewhat - cleaner - than - coal stuff like natural gas, nuclear energy, and biofuels.

The idea is that utilities generate large amounts of clean power in remote, large power plants in much the same way that natural gas, coal, and nuclear power are generated today.

LNG will play its part in this dynamic, offering a cleaner energy solution to the coal Japan is burning to replace its broken nuclear capacity and China is using to fuel its rapid acceleration through a phase of industrialization.

The white paper on Electricity Market Reform has mapped out a new policy to encourage the billions of investment that we need in all three families of low carbon electricity generation — renewables, nuclear and clean coal and gas.

The government should be legislating now in the Energy Bill for a decarbonisation target for 2030 in order to give a framework for those seeking to invest in renewable, nuclear, and clean gas and coal technology.

(b) It is further in the national interest to ensure that the Nation's electricity is affordable, reliable, safe, secure, and clean, and that it can be produced from coal, natural gas, nuclear material, flowing water, and other domestic sources, including renewable sources.

We will legislate for a decarbonisation target for 2030 and unlock billions of pounds in new investment in renewables, nuclear and clean gas and coal technology.

Business leaders called today for the government to invest more in nuclear and clean coal technology and put less emphasis on wind power.

unblock # bns for investment in renewables, nuclear and clean gas / coal technology.

I was encouraged by President Obama's calls for the construction of more nuclear power plants, as well as for increased offshore exploration of oil and natural gas, and the further development of clean coal technologies.

Currently, nuclear and wind energy (as well as clean coal) are between 25 and 75 percent more expensive than old - fashioned coal at current prices (not including all the hidden health and environmental costs of coal), and so it will take a stiff charge on coal to induce rapid replacement of obsolete plants.

This means developing more of America's own energy resources, including wind, solar, clean coal, biofuels, nuclear energy, as well as oil and natural gas — which will reduce our dependence on Middle Eastern oil and create thousands of jobs here at home.

With consumption growing, oil supplies tight, and the world in a warming trend, the search is on for better energy sources — clean coal, safe nuclear reactors, and more far - reaching ideas like artificial photosynthesis.

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).

But one major owner of coal - fired power plants, Southern, has so far lingered on the sidelines and publicized its investments in clean coal technology and nuclear power.

Wheeler examined International Energy Agency data for 174 countries on investments in six low - carbon power sources (hydro, geothermal, nuclear, biomass, wind and solar) to find the incremental costs of clean power compared to a cheaper, carbon - intensive option like a conventional coal - fired power plant.

Strategies to meet the goal would vary by country and largely rely on advanced technology such as capturing the carbon dioxide spewed by coal - burning power plants; the Bush vision also foresees gasoline alternatives, nuclear power and an international clean technology fund to promote research into carbon - free energy sources.

You know, we've underwritten fossil fuel for very long time and continue to, you know; even the new energy bill is supposed to you know give unbelievable gifts to the nuclear industry; the «clean coal» industry, on and on and on.

It's also critical to a future less dependent on foreign oil: Hydraulic fracturing, «clean coal» technologies, nuclear fuel production, and carbon storage (the keystone of the strategy to address climate change) all count on pushing waste into rock formations below the earth's surface.

Possible agents include nuclear radiation and fallout, chemicals used in dry cleaning and other cleaning supplies, benzene, coal tar and its derivatives, asbestos, arsenic, PVC, gasoline and petroleum products and other hydrocarbons, pesticides, cosmetic chemicals, and many others.

Today we have different incentives for different technologies — from nuclear power, to clean coal, to wind and solar energy.

I wince when climate scientists rally for nuclear power, for example, or make statements about the validity of claims about «clean coal» and «fossil carbon capture» when they've never published or worked in those areas.

Coal, foreign oil, wind, solar, hydroelectric, tidal, bio reclammation, nuclear, thermal and perhaps some new clean energy source that is relatively affordable.

[Comment 21] Today we have different incentives for different technologies — from nuclear power, to clean coal, to wind and solar energy.

Those who want clean coal technology, more wind and solar, nuclear power, biomass and bio-fuels will have their opportunity through a new market that rewards those and other innovations in clean energy.

Mr. Gore was gently challenged by some Republican members of the committee who wanted him to endorse nuclear power as a clean alternative to coal and to endorse returning to the public all revenues from a carbon reduction regime.

«I am struck by the lack of fundamental breakthroughs required for an abundant, clean energy future, whether in electricity generation from wind, coal (IGCC), ocean thermal, ocean wave, ocean tide, solar, nuclear, or liquids from coal - to - liquids, gas - to - liquids, biofuels, bio-engineered fuels, and so on.»

If you fully fund and build the solar and wind energy network that you talked of in your acceptance speech, we will not need «harnessed» nuclear power, nor «clean» or any kind of coal.

China is closing many of their dirtiest coal power plants, and they are building much clean nuclear and wind generation.»

In absence of AGW and other environmental degradation, one might assume that nuclear and the oxymoronic «clean coal», are solutions.

But until we get to those stages, improved energy storage schemes such as hydrogen, could be used to run other sources of electricity, such as nuclear and clean coal plants, as base - load (24 hours a day) rather than cyce to respond to demand requirements.

In the early 1970s, Energy Probe saw nuclear power as a relatively clean and economic alternative to coal, then a highly polluting form of electrical generation.

In the 1960s, most conservationists favored nuclear plants as a clean energy alternative to coal plants and hydroelectric dams and only turned away from nuclear with the rise of open anti-humanism.

Business Secretary John Hutton told the Labour Party conference that clean coal technology and a «renaissance in nuclear power» were needed if we weren't to leave ourselves at the mercy of gas imports from unstable and unfriendly foreign regimes.

While this is more expensive than the current cost of market power at $ 32 / MWh, solar has no fuel costs, no risk of fuel cost increases, and no water or air pollution, coal ash clean - up, or nuclear waste costs.

To change how we power our homes and offices, we will invest more in zero - emission coal - fired plants, revolutionary solar and wind technologies, and clean, safe nuclear energy.

, solar has no fuel costs, no risk of fuel cost increases, and no water or air pollution, coal ash clean - up, or nuclear waste costs.

Both nuclear power and natural gas will be vital to providing clean, reliable energy to the U.S. economy as traditional renewables and coal with carbon capture and sequestration are further commercialized.

No matter how forceful industry lobbying, the market factors simply dictate that nuclear and coal power plants should be replaced by cheaper, cleaner, and safer solar and wind power.

Still, all regions of the nation can take advantage of cleaner electric power, like nuclear, waste - to - energy, coal with carbon capture and sequestration, and natural gas.

Today, most alternative energy technologies that are discussed — wind, solar, tides, waves, clean coal, nuclear fission and, perhaps one day, fusion — are useful only for making electricity.

It also aligns with the assessment of clean energy and environmental groups, natural gas trade groups and utilities that have invested in more natural gas generation, and the majority of energy regulators and economists, who have fought FirstEnergy's and the Trump administration's attempts to bail out coal and nuclear interests, largely in the PJM region.

Expensive nuclear and clean coal plants a big gamble.

These findings align with PJM's broader assessment of its future grid reliability as more and more coal and nuclear plants find themselves economically uncompetitive in the face of flat demand, cheap and plentiful natural gas, and a rising share of zero marginal - cost clean energy.

Clean electricity, their aides explained, includes wind, solar, and hydropower; nuclear energy; and even fossil fuels like coal and natural gas, as long as those are burned in plants that capture the CO2 emissions and trap them underground.

Clinging to coal or nuclear power and parading as climate champions while failing to accelerate the clean energy transition is nothing but bad faith.

These talking points are designed to sound like principles, but those who amplify them generally have no problem with subsidies for oil and gas or nuclear and coal, which historically have dwarfed support for clean energy.

[1] The Clean Energy Standard Act of 2012 defines «clean» electricity as «electricity generated at a facility placed in service after 1991 using renewable energy, qualified renewable biomass, natural gas, hydropower, nuclear power, or qualified waste - to - energy; and electricity generated at a facility placed in service after enactment that uses qualified combined heat and power (CHP), [which] generates electricity with a carbon - intensity lower than 0.82 metric tons per megawatt - hour (the equivalent of new supercritical coal), or [electricity generated] as a result of qualified efficiency improvements or capacity additions at existing nuclear or hydropower facilities -LSB-; or] electricity generated at a facility that captures and stores its carbon dioxide emissions.&rClean Energy Standard Act of 2012 defines «clean» electricity as «electricity generated at a facility placed in service after 1991 using renewable energy, qualified renewable biomass, natural gas, hydropower, nuclear power, or qualified waste - to - energy; and electricity generated at a facility placed in service after enactment that uses qualified combined heat and power (CHP), [which] generates electricity with a carbon - intensity lower than 0.82 metric tons per megawatt - hour (the equivalent of new supercritical coal), or [electricity generated] as a result of qualified efficiency improvements or capacity additions at existing nuclear or hydropower facilities -LSB-; or] electricity generated at a facility that captures and stores its carbon dioxide emissions.&rclean» electricity as «electricity generated at a facility placed in service after 1991 using renewable energy, qualified renewable biomass, natural gas, hydropower, nuclear power, or qualified waste - to - energy; and electricity generated at a facility placed in service after enactment that uses qualified combined heat and power (CHP), [which] generates electricity with a carbon - intensity lower than 0.82 metric tons per megawatt - hour (the equivalent of new supercritical coal), or [electricity generated] as a result of qualified efficiency improvements or capacity additions at existing nuclear or hydropower facilities -LSB-; or] electricity generated at a facility that captures and stores its carbon dioxide emissions.»