So just how large is the task of replacing the current fossil fuel - based energy supply (in particular,
conventional coal burning) with other non-polluting fuel sources?
This, they argue, can only be achieved by phasing out
all conventional coal burning by 2030, and by aggressively reducing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by capturing it in growing tropical forests and in agricultural soils.
India is as determined as ever to sustain its economic growth and demand help from the rich world for any costly diversion from
conventional coal burning to fuel that growth.
Not exact matches
And it could mean a future viable source of energy that emits no pollution or radioactivity,
burns no fossil fuels, and could be no more expensive to run than
conventional coal or electric power plants.
According to the Pembina Institute 63.7 % of Alberta's electricity generation now comes from
burning conventional coal.
Conventional plants
burn pulverized
coal in the air, which contains about 78 percent nitrogen.
Plenty of
coal to run high tech civilization at least another hundred years even with substantial economic growth by
burning it in
conventional coal - fired electric plants and making liquid hydrocarbon automotive fuels from it.
Even with all the compromises aimed at political consensus, the bill would surely create more incentives for speeding deployment of energy options other than
conventional burning of
coal and oil.
That
conventional view could change in a world where the full cost of
burning coal is high and gas is cheap.
The piece effectively, if depressingly, reveals why all of the options for slowing or stopping the buildup of this long - lived greenhouse gas will be nearly impossible to deploy at a scale relevant to the climate challenge as long as
conventional burning of abundant carbon - rich fuels — particularly
coal — is the cheapest energy source.
Dr. Hansen, like many who commented on Dot Earth after I wrote about his statements, insists that the parallels hold between the denial and passivity that allowed a human cataclysm to sweep Europe in plain sight and the denial and inaction now as the world prepares to build hundreds of
conventional coal -
burning power plants.
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.
Now, I'll illustrate the emissions scenario from potential
burning of tar sands oil and other unconventional fossil fuels (UFF) as contrasted with
conventional fossil fuels (oil, gas, and
coal).
Read the original article for more detailed reasons why fracking emissions are so much higher than
conventional sources of natural gas — which otherwise compared to
coal is a far cleaner -
burning source of energy, even if a long way from being carbon - neutral or renewable.
The Contents: Spectra's FAQ about the project tout natural gas as being «the cleanest
burning conventional source of energy,» producing «45 % less carbon dioxide than
coal and 30 % less than fuel oil when
burned.