Sentences with phrase «cost than fossil fuels»

If new technology is developed that will eliminate the need for fossil fuels entirely at a lower cost than fossil fuels, then fossil fuels will be replaced.

For example, rooftop solar can now provide electricity to businesses and households at a lower cost than fossil fuels and improvements in vehicle efficiency can easily pay for themselves.

But if you use the argument that nuclear is too expensive because it is 12 % higher cost than fossil fuels, can you tell me how much more expensive is the synthetic biology fuel you are advocating than current fuel prices (delivered to the consumer)?

As he stated flatly in an exclusive interview with Fortune: «The core mission of the company is selling clean energy at a lower cost than fossil fuels.

Renewable energy currently tends to have higher up - front costs than fossil fuel - based power systems do, but in the long run equipment depreciation is lower and the fuel (sunlight and wind) is free, thus any honest cost analysis over the lifetime of the power - generating equipment will conclude that solar is cheapest, wind second, nuclear third, and fossil fuels are unworkable in the long run due to the global warming issue.

This means a duplication of capacity and more than doubling of the costs (because the renewable energy generators are much higher cost than the fossil fuel generators which are essential back up and could do the job on their own).

Not exact matches

The world added more energy from renewable sources than from fossil fuels in 2015 and 2016 — because they finally became cost effective.

In the U.S., the cost of solar energy is now about on par with — and in some cases, cheaper than — energy from fossil fuels.

With economies of scale the cost of solar power has plunged much faster than many people expected — and some are actually arguing that solar will become cheaper than fossil fuels within the next few years.

``... to wean our economy off its overreliance on high - cost carbon fuels...» And how do you propose to do this with fossil fuels representing more than 80 % of the energy budget?

Yes, households are being asked to contribute to the cost of developing green energy — but contrary to the claims of some think tanks and commentators, this will be far less than the cost of staying hooked on fossil fuels.

It's that the costs of using renewable energy are still far greater than the cost of using fossil fuel in the vast majority of applications...

A new renewable plant costs far more than a fossil fuel plant whose cost was amortized years ago.

But in November and December 2005, wind power in Colorado cost less than electricity from fossil fuel, and the average household that switched to wind saved $ 4 a month on its electric bill.

Despite decades of improvements to solar cells, the electricity they produce still costs up to 10 times more than that from fossil fuels.

Some, including New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg and the U.S. Congressional Budget Office, have suggested that a national carbon tax — an extra cost per amount of fossil fuel burned — would be simpler and more effective than any cap - and - trade system.

Once the construction costs of a nuclear plant are amortized, its operating costs are less than those of any fossil fuel — fired plant, including coal.

That's been the goal of solar panel makers for a long time, because as those prices decline electricity from the sun costs the same as, or is even cheaper than electricity from burning fossil fuels.

CIGS on glass panels can drop that cost to $ 1.50 per watt, Guha says, but he also acknowledges that solar energy will not be able to compete with fossil fuel — based electricity until it costs less than $ 1 per watt.

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.

«If you look at cost per kilowatt - hour, renewables, in some parts of the country, are already cheaper [than fossil fuels].»

But calculating the costs associated with premature death caused by air pollution is complex and has resulted in very different estimates: because of the different methodologies used, the cost of air pollution related to fossil fuel consumption is estimated to be three times higher in the US than the EU.

Air and water pollution from fossil fuel extraction and use have high costs in human health, food production, and natural ecosystems, killing more than 1,000,000 people per year and affecting the health of billions of people [232], [234], with costs borne by the public.

Feed - in tariffs would also have the effect of lowering the consumer's costs for renewable energy, which would only grow cheaper over time, as more and more manufacturing capacity was built — because under equivalent economies of scale, renewables are definitely cheaper than fossil fuels.

I agree with SA that, once the transition is well advanced, there's no reason why energy from renewable sources has to cost more than energy from fossil fuels, when all costs are counted.

Of course alternatives to fossil fuels cost more than fossil fuels do, provided you neglect the environmental impact of fossil fuels.

Cost of these alternative sources are cheaper than continuing to use irreplaceable fossil fuels or dangerous (both materially and policically) radioactive materials.

Demonstrating that the overall environmental damage is less than that from coal does not imply that gas production and use is cost - free, and the sooner we reduce our dependence on fossil fuel sources of energy of all kinds the better.

, this means more than anything else that we should advocate removal of the wet blanket suffocating risk - reducing action throughout the economy --- that suffocating wet blanket being fossil fuels sold at prices that omit their worst costs.

Their critics say their stance, however well intentioned, will produce the real delays, given how much can be done now simply by cutting energy waste with tools already on the shelf — ranging from strengthening efficiency standards to eliminating billions of dollars in persistent fossil - fuel subsidies that continue to make coal and oil much cheaper than they really are when all their hidden costs are revealed.

A carbon tax will make fossil fuel prices come closer to covering full cost, incorporating some of those fuels» currently - excluded costs: our dependence on and enrichment of oil - country despots, huge military costs of protecting distant oil operations and transport, health costs from emissions other than CO2, etc., etc., etc.....

In its report on next year's Pentagon budget, the House Armed Services Committee banned the Defense Department from making or buying an alternative fuel that costs more than a «traditional fossil fuel.»

We need to do a «full court press» to switch from fossil fuels and nuclear (which also releases heat into water on a large scale, and supports nuclear military programs), using existing and near - commercialization battery, solar and wind technology, and design systems to cost - effectively convert the existing 600 - million - plus vehicle fleet rather than waiting for replacement.

Suffice to say that when you factor in all of the government subsidies and «externalities» (increased health costs from respiratory sickness, environmental degradation, etc; the stuff that we all have to pay for maybe not from our wallets but in our tax returns), the true price of fossil fuels is much, much higher than any individual or company pays.

d. Changing perceptions of the risks and benefits of nuclear power leads to increasing public support for nuclear > allows the NRC licensing process to be completely revamped and the culture of the organisation to be changed from «safety first» to an appropriate balance of all costs and risks, including the consequences of retarding nuclear development and rollout by making it too expensive to compete as well as it could if the costs were lower (e.g. higher fatalities per TWh if nuclear is not allowed to be cheaper than fossil fuels);

Such co-production systems, when considered as power generators, can provide decarbonized electricity at lower costs than is feasible with new stand - alone fossil fuel power plants under a wide range of conditions, according to the study by Liu et al. published in the ACS journal Energy & Fuels.

In December, the World Economic Forum said the cost of new solar and wind energy is now the same, or cheaper, than new fossil fuels in more than 30 countries, Quartz reported.

To achieve this, the cost of electricity from nuclear will have to become cheaper than from fossil fuels.

[citation needed] Nevertheless, due to very capital intensive production, it is generally not thought that first generation cells will be able to provide energy more cost effective than fossil fuel sources.»

• global emissions from fossil fuels are reduce by 50 % in 50 years • Due in part to lower cost energy, the world will be much richer than current projections suggest; as a result, population growth rate slows to the low end of projections.

(2a: Why does solar power cost so much more than power from fossil fuels?)

Nuclear defenders are calling for keeping things in perspective — fossil fuels, they point out, have many more costs and risks associated with them than nuclear power; and newer generation reactor designs are far safer than those built in Japan many decades ago (a number of US plants from the same era have the same or similar designs).

• nuclear power will be substantially cheaper than fossil fuel electricity generation • cheap electricity substitutes for some gas for heating and oil for land transport (as in electric vehicles and low - cost electricity producing energy carriers).

Currently, photovoltaic solar energy still costs more than electricity from fossil fuels.

Bio-SNG (Synthetic Natural Gas) delivered via the gas grid offers CO2 lifecycle savings of up to 90 % compared with fossil fuel alternatives, and offer sa more cost - effective solution than electricity for carbon abatement in transport applications, according to a new... Read more →

The fossil fuel companies will pass the cost on to customers, but the person doing better than average in limiting fossil fuel use will make money.

In recent years, the total cost of fossil - fuel consumption subsidies worldwide has ranged from $ 480 billion to $ 630 billion per year, plus more than $ 100 billion spent every year in production subsidies.

In fact, when all costs are taken into consideration, fossil fuels are already more expensive than many renewable energy sources.

Bio-SNG (Synthetic Natural Gas) delivered via the gas grid offers CO2 lifecycle savings of up to 90 % compared with fossil fuel alternatives, and offer sa more cost - effective solution than electricity for carbon abatement in transport applications, according to a new feasibility study published by National Grid (UK), the North East Process Industry Cluster (NEPIC) and Centrica.

The analyses published in Nordhaus (2008)[2] show the «cost competitive alternative to fossil fuels» policy (called «Low - cost backstop policy») is far better than the «Optimal carbon price» policy.