Sentences with phrase «coal costs more»

But as this study shows, no matter how you mine it, coal costs more in damages to other segments of the economy than all of the electricity it generates is worth.

Not exact matches

OTTAWA — The federal Liberal government says its new regulations to phase out power plants fired by coal and natural gas will cost more than $ 2.2 billion, but potentially save the country billions more in reduced health care costs.

Solar pv has dropped 70 % in cost in the last 6 years and has become competitive with coal (which is dropping in price as commodity) making it more and more expensive to get out of the ground.

The coal regs come with benefits too, which federal officials estimate will more than offset the costs by a margin of $ 7 billion.

The major reason for this is the strong profitability of the industry — the price of both the ingredients (iron ore, coal, freight, fluxes etc.) and the finished steel has decreased, but the costs of producing a ton of steel fell more, so the profit margins have actually improved.

A 2016 study by health and environmental organizations found phasing out coal by 2030 would prevent more than a thousand premature deaths and some 870 hospital visits in Canada, while saving nearly $ 5 billion in costs to society, including healthcare expenses and lost productivity.

Plus, more EPA mandates have driven the cost of mining and using coal much higher.

«Previous governments in Alberta and Ottawa offered to provide a subsidy of $ 779 milliontoward the $ 1.4 - billion price tag for TransAlta's proposed coal - fired carbon capture and storage project, but even with taxpayers shouldering more than half the cost, there wasn't a viable business case and the project was shelved.

COAL»S COST In response to nuclear power plant shutdowns, Kentucky's coal - fired Paradise Fossil Plant (shown) began producing more power, and more air pollutCOAL»S COST In response to nuclear power plant shutdowns, Kentucky's coal - fired Paradise Fossil Plant (shown) began producing more power, and more air pollutcoal - fired Paradise Fossil Plant (shown) began producing more power, and more air pollution.

For many Africans and Africa observers, the massive Medupi and Kusile coal plants being built by South Africa's Eskom at a cost of more than $ 20 billion, or the 6,000 - MW Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam under construction on the Blue Nile River for an estimated $ 4 billion, are hallmarks of the continent's progress toward electrification.

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.

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

Because these cells can be made more quickly than bulky solar panels, the company thinks they might be cost - competitive with coal or nuclear power.

They could soon find themselves competing with Chinese coal, which is set to become more competitive as production costs fall.

The shift would reduce economic output by between 2 - 6 percent by 2050, because of the costs of building a cleaner energy system based on low - carbon energies that are more expensive than abundant coal, the IPCC said.

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).

Designed to burn gas from coal and pump carbon dioxide emissions into geological reservoirs, FutureGen II could cost $ 2 billion or more.

More than 100 gigawatts of geothermal power (one tenth of the current U.S. electrical generation) could be developed for $ 1 billion during the next 40 years — at the full cost of one carbon - capturing coal - fired power plant or one - third the cost of a new nuclear generator.

Yohe estimates the cost of achieving a more modest goal of holding warming to roughly 2 degrees C at a cost of 0.5 to 1.5 percent of gross domestic product for the U.S. by 2050, thanks to the expense incurred by, for example, replacing existing coal - fired power plants with renewables or retrofitting them with carbon - capture technology.

NuScale claims it will be able to produce power at about seven to nine cents per kilowatt - hour — roughly the same as big nuclear plants, only a few cents more than the cheapest modern natural gas — fired or coal - fired plants, and one - third the cost of a typical diesel generator.

The cost of retrofitting an old coal plant with capture equipment, for example, could in theory run to more than $ 100 per ton.

Although solar thermal collectors are better than photovoltaic panels or wind turbines at generating reliable power around the clock, solar thermal power is also expensive; at present energy costs, it would require government subsidies to compete with coal and natural gas, which can generate electricity much more cheaply.

The nation has already overtaken the U.S. as the world's largest greenhouse gas emitter largely because of the more than three billion metric tons of coal it burns annually — and several thousand miners die each year digging up the dirty black rock to feed China's energy needs, not to mention the health toll taken by choking air pollution caused by coal burning in the Middle Kingdom, estimated by the World Bank to cost the country $ 100 billion a year in medical care.

Wind Wind energy is much more cost - competitive than solar when compared with coal.

For unsubsidized solar power to be competitive with coal - or natural gas — powered electricity, it needs to cost $ 1 per watt — today, solar is three to five times more expensive than fossil fuels, Atwater said.

More Viable Than Clean Coal To no one's surprise, cost will loom large in any decision to plan on a reactor.

Extending a relationship of more than a decade, the US Department of Energy (DOE) and Research Triangle Institute (RTI) International will collaborate on a project designed to advance the development of coal power plants with near - zero emissions by reducing the cost... Read more →

Oddly, as I pointed out earlier, the Friends of Coal industry front group is not attacking the legislation's impacts on coal — instead going for a general criticism of potential increases in energy costs to consumers. And as I've also pointed out, the United Mine Workers union concluded the bill ensured that «the future of coal will be intact (but still withheld its endorsement, seeking more concessions for coal companies and coal - fired utilitiCoal industry front group is not attacking the legislation's impacts on coal — instead going for a general criticism of potential increases in energy costs to consumers. And as I've also pointed out, the United Mine Workers union concluded the bill ensured that «the future of coal will be intact (but still withheld its endorsement, seeking more concessions for coal companies and coal - fired utiliticoal — instead going for a general criticism of potential increases in energy costs to consumers. And as I've also pointed out, the United Mine Workers union concluded the bill ensured that «the future of coal will be intact (but still withheld its endorsement, seeking more concessions for coal companies and coal - fired utiliticoal will be intact (but still withheld its endorsement, seeking more concessions for coal companies and coal - fired utiliticoal companies and coal - fired utiliticoal - fired utilities).

â $ œthe coal is running out in Central Appalachia and Wyoming, and every year, that coal becomes more costly to mine, and those higher costs are transferred onto us, the consumers.â $

That's right, the coal is running out in Central Appalachia and Wyoming, and every year, that coal becomes more costly to mine, and those higher costs are transferred onto us, the consumers.

I myself have been accused of being a paid shill for the coal industry, because I argued that rapidly deploying solar and wind energy technologies, along with efficiency and smart grid technologies, is a much faster and much more cost effective way of reducing GHG emissions from electricity generation than building new nuclear power plants.

New coal plants are costing more than double what they were projected to cost just a few years ago and even more and that does not include CCS.

China is bound to be dependent on coal for energy — we can not afford oil as an alternative when it costs more than US$ 100 dollars (680 yuan) a barrel.

But how much more can be accomplished administratively is unclear, which is why the prese ce of a clear and present signal that raises the cost of emitting carbon (starting from where oil, gas, and coal are dug up) is so important to cover all the bases.

For a small fraction of the cost I could eliminate more greenhouse gas by converting the large Four Corners, coal - fired electric power plant in New Mexico to natural gas.

If taxes and fines proportional to the costs could be imposed, coal would lose some of its competitive advantages, and would be replaced more rapidly by natural gas and then solar and wind.

Natural gas also plays a growing role due to lower natural gas prices and relatively low capital construction costs that make it more attractive than coal.

I can do a lot more at less cost by building nuclear power plants or converting coal fired generators to modern gas - fired ones.

Follow Jaymi on Twitter for more stories like this More on Messes from Mineral Mines World Cup's Soccer City Shows Scale of Mining Waste in South Africa The Incredible Story of Conflict Mineral Mining in Images In Appalachia, Coal Mining Costs $ 9 - $ 76 Billion More Per Year Than It Pulls In, Claims Study India's Mining Boom: Tribal Groups, Poor & Environment Losingmore stories like this More on Messes from Mineral Mines World Cup's Soccer City Shows Scale of Mining Waste in South Africa The Incredible Story of Conflict Mineral Mining in Images In Appalachia, Coal Mining Costs $ 9 - $ 76 Billion More Per Year Than It Pulls In, Claims Study India's Mining Boom: Tribal Groups, Poor & Environment LosingMore on Messes from Mineral Mines World Cup's Soccer City Shows Scale of Mining Waste in South Africa The Incredible Story of Conflict Mineral Mining in Images In Appalachia, Coal Mining Costs $ 9 - $ 76 Billion More Per Year Than It Pulls In, Claims Study India's Mining Boom: Tribal Groups, Poor & Environment LosingMore Per Year Than It Pulls In, Claims Study India's Mining Boom: Tribal Groups, Poor & Environment Losing Out

Coal, like all fossil fuels, is a finite commodity, expected to cost more in the future in both commodity prices and operational expenses, due to new specifications for better scrubbers.

As regards carbon capture and sequestration, the Government Accountability Office estimates clean coal will cost 78 percent more than traditional methods.

so all things being equal (true cost to environment / economy of continuing coal, «clean» or otherwise) alternatives and improved efficiency are more than competitive.

They can build more coal plants, driving up their prices by competing with themselves; or they can flood their electricity markets with the maximum possible volume of non-coal power, enabling their existing fleet to operate at much lower costs and weakening the price power of coal exporters.

With the rapidly falling cost of solar and wind power, as well as energy storage technologies that make renewables more practical on a large scale, coal could lose its primacy faster than most expect.

As of 2013, the world has ~ 1,000 Billion short tons a mine price would be no more than $ 5 per short ton, so we are looking at a cost of ~ $ 5 Trillion to sequester the remaining known coal reserves.

And, the contentious Duke Energy coal gasification facility in Edwardsport Indiana was reportedly using more energy than it produced even after massive cost overuns and ratepayer outrage.

And as the English have done and as the Chinese and the Indians and etc will still do, they will use coal, lots of coal plus gas and oil for power generation until some capitalist somewhere with a very good idea on how to reduce costs and still make a fortune comes along and devises / discovers or restructures an old technology or a new power generation technology that is more efficient, lower cost, more profitable, just as reliable as fossil fueled, those coal, oil and gas generators

It will just become more expensive to generate electricity with oil and coal, but that cost will be passed on to us consumers.

The regulation has been softened since but still operates to push renewable projects to more remote areas where they can compete with high - cost fuel like diesel, and makes them uncompetitive in areas like Java where they compete with low - cost, abundant coal.

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.