Sentences with phrase «coal and natural gas does»

Natural gas has been the primary fuel of choice in recent years, but shifting to an electricity system dependent on coal and natural gas does not alleviate the myriad risks — to the environment, economy, or public health — posed by coal alone.

Not exact matches

Second, many states actively favor renewables in electricity generation, and even in places that don't, the word has gotten out that coal combustion is far deadlier to humans than any other electric generation source — including natural gas.

But the real level of unemployment or underemployment is masked by the fact that the official data does not include China «s 277 million migrant workers, such as Zhang Sihu and his wife from Bianqiang in Yulin, a region rich in coal, oil and natural gas in northwestern Shaanxi province.

Section 2 (1) of Bill 12 refers to refined products which (oddly) do not fall under the primary production from natural resources, which are defined so as to include crude oil and natural gas but, «not a product resulting from refining crude oil, refining upgraded heavy crude oil, refining gases or liquids derived from coal or refining a synthetic equivalent of crude oil.»

Solar power might be an undeniable part of our future — the industry created double the amount of jobs as coal did last year and accounts for nearly 40 % of new electric capacity added to the grid, more than wind or even natural gas — but SolarCity itself isn't.

Fracking and natural gas are better choices for power generation then burning coal and oil and until we have cleaner sources of energy will do.

Recently, he said: «I don't propose that we immediately stop burning coal, oil, and natural gas to address climate change or other environmental issues.

Instead of piping in natural CO2, it will use the greenhouse gas captured at a coal - fired power plant just completed nearly 100 miles north of here and send it down into the reservoir, pushing oil out and leaving the greenhouse gas deep below, safely locked away from the atmosphere, so it does not add to global warming.

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

That's easy to do with coal plants and natural gas turbines.

Proponents say that today energy utilities find greater benefit in a technology that puts the financial risk up front, in the construction cost, and has little vulnerability to later swings in the price of fuel, as natural gas does, or to changes in emissions regulations, as coal faces.

Natural gas is a fossil fuel — like oil and coal — and it does produce carbon dioxide as a result of the combustion process.

The unnecessary investments and energy expended and greenhouse gasses emitted to the atmosphere while exploring and exploiting unproven natural resources in the Arctic Basin such as oil, natural gas, coal and minerals should be prohibited by International Law as was done in Antarctica.

Significant exports of U.S. liquefied natural gas could do two things — first, they would help to slow a shift back to coal in Europe and Japan.

This works for biofuels, as growing crops absorb atmospheric CO2 and convert it to sugars, oils, etc., leading to no net change in atmospheric CO2 when the fuel is burned — but it does not work for coal, oil or natural gas, however.

Natural gas is widely considered to be an environmentally cleaner fuel than coal because it does not produce detrimental by - products such as sulfur, mercury, ash and particulates and because it provides twice the energy per unit of weight with half the carbon footprint during combustion.

India cancelled an Enron power plant when they didn't use coal, and instead produced an expensive natural gas plant with fuel from Africa.

New coal plants cost three to four times as much as they did three years ago, due to the embedded cost of petroleum and natural gas in plant construction, materials and labor.

A more likely scenario if we do nothing is that emissions will continue at a rapid pace as oil from sand and shale plus coal substantially replace oil and natural gas, with the consequence that we will have dug ourselves into a deeper hole in terms of having sufficient resources to reduce emissions sufficiently without major disruption to our society.

The value of doing this is clear: «Experts say that if we bought $ 50 to $ 200 billion worth of solar panels over the next 10 — 20 years, the price of solar could come to down to the price of natural gas and even coal, not just in the U.S. but even in developing countries like China, where coal is especially cheap.»

But what Ingraffea is doing in continuing to claim that natural gas is as bad as coal is not a matter of looking at the same data as everybody else and drawing different conclusions.

VRE's signals of increased flexibility does have the potential of reducing revenue and operations profits for nuclear and coal plants, less so for natural gas sourced units.

The US Energy Information Administration, Environmental Progress, and Bloomberg New Energy Finance have all done studies showing that when nuclear plants close, they are replaced overwhelmingly by coal and natural gas, which would also happen if New York closed its nuclear plants.

But the fact is that oil, natural gas, and coal companies do not collect any money from the government.

7 - Human use of coal, oil, and natural gas has not harmfully warmed the Earth, and the extrapolation of current trends shows that it will not do so in the foreseeable future.

So do deforestation, coal mining, and the extraction and use of natural gas.

Higher density sources of fuel such as coal and natural gas utilized in centrally - produced power stations actually improve the environmental footprint of the poorest nations while at the same time lifting people from the scourge of poverty... Developing countries in Asia already burn more than twice the coal that North America does, and that discrepancy will continue to expand... So, downward adjustments to North American coal use will have virtually no effect on global CO2 emissions (or the climate), no matter how sensitive one thinks the climate system might be to the extra CO2 we are putting back into the atmosphere.

To his credit, Fisher did mention that coal and natural gas can face challenges during periods of extreme cold.

Utilities in New England and the Midwest had trouble getting enough natural gas and other heating oils to customers, meaning the regions would have suffered from brownouts or even blackouts if coal power did not come online to pick up the slack.

Did you seriously imagine that it is being recharged with windmills and sunbeams (4 % of U.S. power), rather than by coal and natural gas - fired turbines?

Just growing corn and preserving it in a salt mine forever whilst making gasoline from coal or natural gas will even capture far more carbon than using it for ethanol does.

From a purely pragmatic perspective, one could argue that the Republicans are simply looking out for taxpayer interests until you realize that their «don't buy it if it's more expensive» directive doesn't apply to synthetic fuels derived from coal and natural gas.

But why did Abe go with coal and not renewables or, say, natural gas?

Natural gas does emit less GHG than coal on a per Btu basis when burned, but the analysis assumes there are no methane leaks from both conventional and unconventional wells.

It does have the disadvantage that fracking for natural gas reduces emissions of CO2 compared to coal, but this is well worth it for providing the advantages of improving human lives by using plentiful, inexpensive gas and oil.

Much like countries across the globe are doing today, Mexico began replacing coal plants with natural gas plants and importing as much fuel from the U.S. as possible.

Clean, renewable energy sources — including wind, solar and geothermal power — do not pollute our air or our water and will never run out, unlike coal, natural gas and other fossil fuels.

India, and other developing countries, don't have inexpensive natural gas, so they must turn to coal, or nuclear, for base load power generation.

Operating cost for electric cars is $ 0.50 to $ 0.75 per mile versus $ 0.10 for gasoline powered cars once battery replacement costs are included By 2020, Chinese PER CAPITA emissions will be higher than America's Does not believe that the 0.6 degree temperature rise to date is the West's «fault,» but does believe that China is the future problem Whatever U.S. does about emissions reduction and what people do as individuals is totally trivial in face of the fact that China is adding huge amounts of coal fired generating capacity The most meaningful emissions reduction strategy today would be to convert China from coal to natural gas The claim that there are more frequent or more intense hurricanes and tornadoes as a result of AGW is not scientifically supported We can reduce emissions, but it is important that we do the RIGHT things (and NOT the WRONG ones) Not worried about «peak oil;» coal can be converted to liquid Does not believe that the 0.6 degree temperature rise to date is the West's «fault,» but does believe that China is the future problem Whatever U.S. does about emissions reduction and what people do as individuals is totally trivial in face of the fact that China is adding huge amounts of coal fired generating capacity The most meaningful emissions reduction strategy today would be to convert China from coal to natural gas The claim that there are more frequent or more intense hurricanes and tornadoes as a result of AGW is not scientifically supported We can reduce emissions, but it is important that we do the RIGHT things (and NOT the WRONG ones) Not worried about «peak oil;» coal can be converted to liquid does believe that China is the future problem Whatever U.S. does about emissions reduction and what people do as individuals is totally trivial in face of the fact that China is adding huge amounts of coal fired generating capacity The most meaningful emissions reduction strategy today would be to convert China from coal to natural gas The claim that there are more frequent or more intense hurricanes and tornadoes as a result of AGW is not scientifically supported We can reduce emissions, but it is important that we do the RIGHT things (and NOT the WRONG ones) Not worried about «peak oil;» coal can be converted to liquid does about emissions reduction and what people do as individuals is totally trivial in face of the fact that China is adding huge amounts of coal fired generating capacity The most meaningful emissions reduction strategy today would be to convert China from coal to natural gas The claim that there are more frequent or more intense hurricanes and tornadoes as a result of AGW is not scientifically supported We can reduce emissions, but it is important that we do the RIGHT things (and NOT the WRONG ones) Not worried about «peak oil;» coal can be converted to liquid fuel

Peak natural gas and coal production do not arise for several decades (see a previous post), giving plenty of time to improve on the eventually inevitable nuclear designs if one doesn't like the present «best» iterations.

Instead of doing this, why don't we simply fix the broken permit process for new nuclear plants and give modest tax incentives to industries or individuals that implement «no regrets» initiatives to reduce CO2, such as: — replace new coal - fired power plants with nuclear or natural gas (where a gas supply exists)-- replace newnormal automobiles with hybrids — replace Diesel for new heavy transport with natural gas — install energy savings initiatives (waste recycling, better building insulation, etc..)

Although both are hydrocarbon energy sources, mining and burning coal has a far, far greater impact on the environment than does recovering and burning natural gas.

Note, for example, that such an approach does not distinguish between coal and natural gas, despite the dramatically different impacts these fuels have on CO2 emissions (and a host of other environmental outcomes).

We don't want LNG [liquid natural gas] facilities anywhere near us; we don't want to explore for oil and gas; we don't like coal; we won't touch nuclear.

We burn fossil fuels (coal, oil and natural gas) because we didn't realize they were adding to the greenhouse effect which is now causing global warming and climate change.

Growth in the power sector is due to increased demand for electricity, but natural gas's share does not increase as coal and renewable energy also compete for the power sector market.

So, although methane leakage reduces the short - term emissions benefit of switching from coal to gas — and should be addressed for that reason — it does not limit natural gas's potential as a bridge fuel to a low - carbon future.

I simply don't understand the mentality that says that without oil and coal and natural gas, we'll end up looking at Neanderthals as gods.

Two huge «wind farms» recently announced in Texas demonstrate clearly that wind energy is a niche technology that will do little to offset the need for the people of the US to depend on coal, natural gas, oil, nuclear energy and hydropower for their electricity for years to come.

Coal to gas: the influence of methane leakage; an interesting paper on how methane leakage from the natural gas industry could prove worse for climate change than burning coal (and it doesn't seem to consider the leakage from coal seam gCoal to gas: the influence of methane leakage; an interesting paper on how methane leakage from the natural gas industry could prove worse for climate change than burning coal (and it doesn't seem to consider the leakage from coal seam gcoal (and it doesn't seem to consider the leakage from coal seam gcoal seam gas).