Sentences with phrase «cost of coal burning»

Anti-regulatory blogs and commentators and the McCain - Palin campaign made a push to publicize a 10 - month - old comment by Senator Barack Obama about the high cost of coal burning if and when a hard cap is set for carbon dioxide emissions.

The rampant air and water pollution resulting from fossil fuel use has garnered considerable attention in recent years, with landmark studies on the human health effects and other costs of coal burning, and alarming accounts of declining air quality in gas - and - oil - drilling boomtowns.

Not exact matches

RESOLVED: That Berkshire Hathaway Inc. («Berkshire») establish reasonable, quantitative goals for reduction of greenhouse gas and other air emissions at its energy - generating holdings; and that Berkshire publish a report to shareholders by January 31, 2015 (at reasonable cost and omitting proprietary information) on how it will achieve these goals — including possible plans to retrofit or retire existing coal - burning plants at Berkshire - held companies.

That has helped to boost rates of cardiovascular disease and other health effects of such air pollution, a problem that combined with the health effects of air pollution from industrial coal burning that costs China roughly $ 66 billion dollars per year and causes 760,000 premature deaths, according to a World Bank report.

At a cost of less than 3 cents per kilowatt - hour, tornado energy is cheaper than burning coal (which rings up at 4 or 5 cents per kwh) and produces no additional greenhouse gases.

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).

A tale of two solar press releases A new startup at MIT is working hard to create a kind of printable solar panel that could produce electricity that is cost - competitive with the electricity produced by burning coal.

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.

The cost of extracting and burning coal is about 0.64 kilograms of CO2 per kilowatt - hour of energy we get from it.

The Kyoto protocol helps to address this by imposing a kind of extra cost on burning coal, but there is the problem that it this cost is applied non-uniformly.

When you flip the switch on the wall and the light goes on, you know exactly what it costs — all you have to do is take a deep breath and feel the burn of coal smoke in your lungs.

I then simply assumed that burning coal is the only cost of providing electricity.

The potential political costs of capping carbon dioxide from coal burning were on full display in the final hours of the presidential campaign.

That conventional view could change in a world where the full cost of burning coal is high and gas is cheap.

In the meantime, how do you personally weigh the costs of changing from unfettered burning of the fuels of convenience — coal and oil — which have created so much wealth, for the sake of limiting future risks?

[Response: And also factor in that reduction in hurricane damage is not the only, or even the major, benefit of GHG control, and perhaps also the fact that it's not entirely clear that a smart implementation of Kyoto would actually «cost» anything, given ancillary benefits of energy efficiency and health benefits from reduced or cleaner coal burning.

They might not make accurate estimates of economies of scale of solar and wind collection devices in the SimCity computer model, or fully account for incidental costs of burning coal.

The Kyoto protocol helps to address this by imposing a kind of extra cost on burning coal, but there is the problem that it this cost is applied non-uniformly.

«How do you personally weigh the costs of changing from unfettered burning of the fuels of convenience — coal and oil — which have created so much wealth, for the sake of limiting future risks?»

It also makes economic sense: All those reservoirs filling up with coal ash day after day are just problems waiting to happen, and if we're just waiting for catastrophes to happen before we do something, the true cost of burning coal isn't being internalized properly; local citizens and people downstream of those rivers end up paying for it with their health and by losing their local environment (what if your family house was buried in potentially toxic sludge?).

... the only way to consider new coal - fired plants a remotely plausible undertaking is to completely ignore the social costs of burning the coal.

Air pollution from Europe's 300 largest coal power stations causes 22,300 premature deaths a year and costs companies and governments billions of pounds in disease treatment and lost working days, says a major study of the health impacts of burning coal to generate electricity.

The hearings were to determine the environmental cost of burning coal by state power plants.

A carbon tax on coal destined to be burned will increase the price of electricity, but income tax, GST, or other taxes could be reduced so that the cost of living, and the total tax take, would remain the same.

In these cases, something happened (e.g., natural gas replaced some coal burning in the United States, the cost of solar technology has declined dramatically).

The LCOE of electricity from coal, for example, takes into account both the cost of building a coal - fired power plant and the cost of buying and burning coal.

Mitigating the environmental costs of digging up and burning coal thus means digging up and burning even more coal.»

In addition, this initiative brings attention to the health care costs to society of burning coal.

For example, if a massive global nuclear expansion was one way of savagely reducing the amount of coal and natural gas burned in power stations (which it is) and the cost disadvantage of nuclear wasn't completely silly (which it isn't) then that could work.

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Al Gore and other big thinkers say cleaner burning natural gas is a bridge from the harms of coal to mid-century, when the cost and scale of renewables will be adequate to meet demand.

Despite those investments the facility closed like many other coal - fired plants because the operating cost of burning coal was not competitive with gas - fired competition.

4) We can't begin to discuss how efficient coal might be while we actively ignore a large component of the real cost of burning it.

«Raising the cost of burning coal or any other fossil fuel isn't a bad thing,» Knittel says.

The two are far from the same, and making burning coal and tar expensive will very likely drive down the long term cost of energy as Moore's Law takes over in solar, wind, ocean and geothermal.

Expressed in financial terms, the health costs linked to biomass burning for power generation run into billions of euros each year, with health costs associated with emissions from former coal and co-fired plants amounting to 137,000 euros per year on average for every megawatt of electrical capacity installed.

Cost to burn a tonne of coal for most Australian coal plants before July 1st: About $ 3 Minimum cost to burn a tonne of coal in Australia after July 1st: About Cost to burn a tonne of coal for most Australian coal plants before July 1st: About $ 3 Minimum cost to burn a tonne of coal in Australia after July 1st: About cost to burn a tonne of coal in Australia after July 1st: About $ 70

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.

In a nutshell, Power demonstrates that the planned coal export facilities in the Northwest would add to the supply of coal to China thereby pushing down the cost of burning it.

In the meantime, Chu was cautioned that doing anything to increase the cost of burning coal in the near term without a firm commitment from the Chinese would be a non starter.

the Michigan Tech scientists focussed only on deaths from air pollution linked to coal - burning power stations: they did not make a calculation about the economic costs of chronic illness linked to polluted air, nor did they estimate the health costs that might be linked to the entire coal industry, nor include the estimates of deaths that might be attributed to climate change as a consequence of prodigal fossil fuel combustion.

Importantly, the Michigan Tech scientists focussed only on deaths from air pollution linked to coal - burning power stations: they did not make a calculation about the economic costs of chronic illness linked to polluted air, nor did they estimate the health costs that might be linked to the entire coal industry, nor include the estimates of deaths that might be attributed to climate change as a consequence of prodigal fossil fuel combustion.

Inslee requests an extremely thorough environmental assessment report for the proposed port site, factoring in the costs of emissions and pollution created by the coal were it burned in Asia.

The cost of transporting a 300 tonnes of water with every thousand tonnes of (wet) coal the 250 km from the mine to the power station (in the case of coal mined at Leigh Creek and burned at Port Augusta) must be very high, but I would think that it would be insignificant compared to the energy loss resulting from burning wet coal.

(2) Coal burning is de-facto Volcanoes the NOX emissions via the Sun's radiation becomes life sustain Nitrogen (3) Relative low cost Canadian Technology captures the real serious nasty emissions, CO2 is part of the essential life cycles.

In addition, the health care costs to society of burning coal are currently estimated at more than $ 100 billion per year, roughly $ 300 for every person in the United States or $ 1,200 for a family of four.

Because the social cost of carbon increases each year, calculations of how much climate change damages are expected because of the emissions from this coal should take into account when the coal is likely to be burned.

None of this is as cheap and easy as burning gas or coal as they are needed; there will be increased costs.

If the external costs of burning coal were recovered by a coal tax, coal would be the most expensive of all energy - generating fuels.

A 2009 study on the negative effects of power generation by the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering (ATSE), «The hidden costs of electricity: externalities of power generation in Australia» calculated the greenhouse impacts and health damage costs of different power generation technologies including coal, gas, wind, solar photovoltaic, solar thermal, geothermal, carbon capture and storage, and nuclear energy, and determined that health costs of burning coal are equivalent to a national health burden of around $ A2.6 billion per annum.

When he learned that some of the climate skeptics would be testifying — and be compelled under oath to reveal their funding sources — in St. Paul, Minnesota, where administrative judge Allan Klein was reviewing the environmental costs of coal - burning by the state's power plants, Gelbspan resolved to use his own savings to fly out to cover the hearings.