Sentences with phrase «coal and oil because»

Natural gas is often touted as more sustainable than coal and oil because it releases fewer pollutants when it burns.

Not exact matches

«We are hopeful that the premier's efforts to allow the voices of his citizens to be listened to will be successful, because it is very much in common with our citizens,» Inslee said, adding that residents in his state recently rejected proposals for both coal and oil ports.

The natural gas plants are necessary partly because of expected load growth, partly because of the intermittent nature of solar power and partly because of the planned retirement of around 3,000 megawatts of generation powered by less efficient coal and oil plants, he said.

The GED per kWh for natural gas is 20 to 30 times lower than for oil and coal, respectively, because its (non-carbon) emissions are so much lower (Table 5).

The businesses drilling for oil and gas and mining coal enjoy effectively lower income tax rates than other American businesses because of an array of favorable provisions in the US tax code.

Combination of economic trends and policies Still, for now an array of Obama administration actions and economic trends are conspiring to cut emissions, according to EIA: Americans are using less oil because of high gasoline prices; carmakers are complying with federal fuel economy standards; electricity companies are becoming more efficient; state renewable energy rules are ushering wind and solar energy onto the power grids; gas prices are competitive with coal; and federal air quality regulations are closing the dirtiest power plants.

Interest in hydrates has skyrocketed in recent years because global deposits are thought to harbor more fuel energy than all the world's coal, oil and natural gas reserves combined.

Two years ago the U.S. Department of Energy predicted a resurgence of coal - fired power plants because of the rising price of oil and natural gas.

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.

If such developments were to occur elsewhere, either because of shale gas or the advent of a truly global natural gas market, then, according to our analysis, this could have a major impact on the use of different fuels — oil, gas, coal, renewables, and nuclear.»

However, because gas, coal and oil are millions of years old, their carbon has a key difference compared to the carbon cycling through plants.

Because economic growth continues to boost the demand for energy — more coal for powering new factories, more oil for fueling new cars, more natural gas for heating new homes — carbon emissions will keep climbing despite the introduction of more energy - efficient vehicles, buildings and appliances.

Yes, for the individual owner it maybe does, but that at the cost of the rest of the world, because electric energy still comes mostly from coal / oil / nuclear power generators for one, with correspondent pollution and infrastructure load.

Because if coal to liquids was profitable at the present price of oil, we'd be seeing someone open a coal to liquids plant and making a profit based on the difference.

Because make fuel from CO2 means to continue to dig coal and oil and use huge amount of energy from nuclear, these make this idea lose advantage much.

However, peak oil means a double whammy — it reducec GHG emissions from oil, however, there is the danger, that we switch to coal - to - liquids, gas - to - liquids, tar sands and oil shales, just because increases in energy efficiency, solar and wind output are not enough to counter population increase, decrease in oil availability, and increase in total energy consumption...

It's partly because, ironically, the burning of fossil fuels, coal, oil, gas, to give us the energy in a very short period of time, dense forms of energy that enable us to send rockets into space, that enable us to power submersibles into the sea, and instrumentation that gives us communication.

Most people think it's the oil industry in general that is promoting this FUD but ExxonMobile seems to be the only major oil company standing with the coal industry and their ex-tobacco scientists, could this be because they have heavy investments in coal but it's easier to scare people by telling them the greenies will take away their SUV's?

A molecule of CO2 from coal, in a certain sense, is different from one from oil or gas, because in the case of oil and gas, it doesn't matter too much when you burn it, because a good fraction of it's going to stay there 500 years anyway.

The annual increments for the past few decades have been slightly larger for oil than for coal, but coal use has accelerated in the past few years, and in the long run coal will be the greatest source because of its larger reserves (discovered deposits) and estimated resources (deposits still to be discovered).

There is a raging battle today about the size of fossil fuel reserves and resources, with «peakists» claiming that we are already at or near peak production of both oil and coal because the amounts of economically recoverable fuels in the ground are more limited than the fossil fuel industry has admitted.

Even if we could find some magic switch, today, that would turn off all of our coal and gas and oil consumption — even then we would still have to adapt, because a certain amount of climate change is already baked into the system.

They want coal, oil and gas to be kept in the ground because they know the damage the fossil fuel industry does to our planet and our species.

Coal and oil won't lose money, but we will have to pay much more for it because a protection racket is getting into the game.

But even much higher supplies of wind power would improve security only marginally, because the U.K. would still have to import just as much oil (wind replaces mostly coal, rarely oil) and much of its gas, leaving it dependent on Russia.

Last year the underlying multi-year average growth rate was higher than ever because the rate of emissions from the burning of coal, oil, and natural gas has experienced a steady upward trend.

Emission growth has slowed only because certain forms of emission have been easy to phase out and energy efficiency has become a priority for environmental reasons, but if you think coal, oil and deforestation will just go away by themselves, you are dreaming.

Credits for using giant machines to remove the gas are not likely to be accepted internationally for a long time, if at all, not least because the industrial infrastructure needed for extraction would need to be about as big as the infrastructure that puts it there — oil wells, coal mines, railways, pipelines, power plants, refineries and so on.

That figure may well be much smaller by the time of the next election, because the market value of some of the major companies has been falling rapidly, and the value of their coal, oil and gas fired power stations is falling even faster.

Because he thought a) that he would find «smoking gun» evidence of «big oil or coal» support, b) that he could neutralize a worrisome opponent and c) that he could get away with it.

Because, if nuclear is cheaper than coal, it will displace gas for heating and some oil for land transport.

Oil and Coal companies are laughing their asses off at the thought of people being against wind power because it kills birds — even if it were true (which it is not) could clean small wind power possibly kill as many birds as oil spills and ground water and air pollution from coal / oil powOil and Coal companies are laughing their asses off at the thought of people being against wind power because it kills birds — even if it were true (which it is not) could clean small wind power possibly kill as many birds as oil spills and ground water and air pollution from coal / oil poCoal companies are laughing their asses off at the thought of people being against wind power because it kills birds — even if it were true (which it is not) could clean small wind power possibly kill as many birds as oil spills and ground water and air pollution from coal / oil powoil spills and ground water and air pollution from coal / oil pocoal / oil powoil power?

Among the Earth's blanket of greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide is the one you probably hear about most often, because it is increasing in the atmosphere as we burn a great deal of coal, oil, and gas for energy.

Because, a quarter millennium ago Watt gave its people steam power so that coal could be mined for warmth and wrangling iron, a century and a half ago Rockefeller standardized oil to give them lamp light and then mobility, and a century or so ago Edison gave them electricity.

We have done so by turning rocks into air at a prodigious speed, because in geological terms that is what burning coal, oil and gas does.

We now have scrubbers on coal and oil fueled power plants because high concentrations of SO2 resulted in health problems for humans and certain trees.

UBS analysts say utilities in Europe need to shut down 30 % of their gas, coal, and oil - fed power capacity by 2017, not to fight global warming, cut pollution, or cut fuel imports, but because renewable energy is pushing fossil fuels off the grid.

And, of course, why nuclear if coal, gas and oil are cheaper and therefore (because less in need of human labour) cleanAnd, of course, why nuclear if coal, gas and oil are cheaper and therefore (because less in need of human labour) cleanand oil are cheaper and therefore (because less in need of human labour) cleanand therefore (because less in need of human labour) cleaner.

Climate scientists do a great job and because of this they have been vilified think tanks and PR outfits supported by the coal and oil industry.

Yes I can say Muller misstated the difference in emissions between coal, oil and gas, because the other components of life cycle emissions (such as the fugitive emissions you referred to) are small compared with emissions from fuel combustion.

The majority of the reductions in the RGGI region to date have occurred because of coal unit retirements and cutbacks in the use of residual oil which were driven by the economics of low natural gas fuel prices.

Under the previous president, Barack Obama, the U.S. used environmental rules to encourage the closing or costly upgrade of coal plants because burning the fuel emits almost twice as much carbon dioxide as natural gas and 28 percent more pollutants than heating oil.

Partly because of the dominance of the oil, gas, and coal industries, which have been providing cheap fuel by omitting the indirect costs of fossil fuel burning, relatively little has been invested in developing the earth's geothermal heat resources.

IF hemp were legalized, since hemp is SUPERIOR to other available natural resources, a few petrochemical monopolies would no longer be feasible... including monsanto's GMO cotton business that consumes HALF of the petrochemical pesticides sprayed in the USA, Hearst's deforestation business would no longer profit from destroying our forests, and we would no longer need Rockefeller's fossil fuels - because we can replace coal (electricity) with hemp pyrolysis, and we can replace gasoline with vegetable oil methanol, and dupont's toxic plastic business would be replaced with non-toxic, biodegradable, stronger, lighter, hemp plastics like they're already using to make Mercedes car parts.

But because most reporters don't have the time, curiosity, or professionalism to check out the science, they write equivocal stories with counterposing quotes that play directly into the hands of the oil and coal industries by keeping the public confused.

We have enormous remaining supplies of oil, gas, and coal because the technology of exploration and extraction has advanced along with solar and wind technology.

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.

But just because it's fossil fuel consumers like power plants and drivers who ultimately burn the coal, oil and gas that emit greenhouse gases, that doesn't let the producers off the hook, she added.

Fossil Fuel is a generic term that isn't quite correct Natural Gasoline is a distilled derivative of oil but almost all ofit is manufactured from cracked and recombined oil derivativeswhile natural gasoline is further refined intoPropane, butane, Proproline (a plastics feed stock), and Natural gasand also separates out sulfur (for fertilizer and explosives) Gasoline can be made from coal («Coaline») or from organic matter («Bio-fuel») but uses a few of oil based feed stocks instead tomake «Sythiline» (artificial gasoline) This gasoline is actually cleaner burning then natural gas with allit's «flare offs» (butane, propane, propoline, sulfur) used in theearly 19th century because it is manufactured only with essentialHydrocarbons Diesel fuel is also becoming more and more Manufactured instead ofdistilled as demand for it rises but improvements in Hydro cleaningis allowing for diesel with no volatile chemicals like sulfur andmercury (taken out for petro - chemical feedstock to make fertilizerand thermometers) In both cases what you have is pure hydro - carbons, a carbon atomwith hydrogen atoms attached to it In the case of gasoline there is CH1, cH7, CH11 When in a combustion engine the gasoline is sprayed into the pistonafter being mixed with air and the drive of the engine compressesthe the chamber filled with the gasoline mist until it's full downstoke then the spark plug causes the Exothermic reaction... which isthe conversion of the potential energy in the gasoline mist to heatand force, with the force side of that equation shooting the pistonupward and the top of the stroke kicking what's left of thecaramelized gasoline mist out into the Emission control box If the Emulsion control box wasn't there to filter out the burntgasoline particles, any potential additives and volatile chemicalsthen the caramelized gunk hitting air would create CARBON MONOXIDEin the cooler then the heat of the engine difference CARBON MONOXIDE can also become a problem if the Emissions controlBox filter, air filters or muffler filters is worn or damaged.

Since a sustainable future based on the continued extraction of coal, oil and gas in the «business - as - usual mode» will not be possible because of both resource depletion and environmental damages (as caused, e.g., by dangerous sea level rise) we urge our societies to -LSB-...] Reduce the concentrations of warming air pollutants (dark soot, methane, lower atmosphere ozone, and hydrofluorocarbons) by as much as 50 % [and] cut the climate forcers that have short atmospheric lifetimes.