Sentences with phrase «emissions from power plants such»

Serbia is in negotiations to join the European Union; critics of the country's energy policy say that in future the government in Belgrade could incur fines of millions of dollars levied by Brussels because of emissions from power plants such as Kostolac.

Serbia is in negotiations to join the European Union; critics of the country's energy policy say that in the future the government in Belgrade could incur fines of millions of dollars levied by Brussels because of emissions from power plants such as Kostolac.

Not exact matches

The scrubbers are a commonly used method for decreasing carbon emissions from industries such as coal - fired power plants, which produce more than 14 billion metric tons of carbon each year.

On Tuesday, the governments of California and six other western states as well as four Canadian provinces proposed a new plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 15 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 using a similar cap - and - trade market — and would expand such regulations to encompass not just CO2 from power plants but also cars and trucks as well as other greenhouse gases, such as potent methane.

Another particulate, secondary sulfates (formed in the atmosphere from emissions, such as those from coal - fired power plants), had the highest concentration (between 30 and 44 percent) of all pollutants at urban and rural sites, with readings being mostly uniform across locations.

The patent, granted in March to UA, claims the chemical make - up of the imido - acid salts for use in capturing CO2 and other gases from natural gas and post-combustion emissions such as those from coal - fired power plants.

Yet overall, she says, emissions from fishing pale in comparison to industries on land, such as power generation from coal plants.

From the International Energy Agency to the United Nations — sanctioned Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), such carbon capture and storage (CCS), particularly for coal - fired power plants, has been identified as a technology critical to enabling deep, rapid cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.

«In addition to identifying the impacts of the emissions from this particular coal - fired power plant on fetal health, the usefulness of this study's identification strategy is its potential application to other studies examining the impact of upwind states» power plant emissions, which have been the target of a series of environmental regulations, such as the EPA's Cross-State Air Pollution Rule,» adds Yang.

Documents made public on the federal government's regulatory Web site show that EPA staff summarized the potential benefits [PDF] from curbing emissions, as well as the scientific data on motor vehicles [PDF] and stationary emission sources [PDF] such as power plants.

Accordingly, it is possible that in the future, U.S. EPA or individual states may seek (or be required) to regulate carbon dioxide or other GHG emissions from biomass - fired power plants, including requiring such plants to retroactively obtain permits or install pollution control technology.

Both are pollutants, but the first is dominated by sulphate emissions from coal burning power plants, the second from ozone precursors such as NOx, volatile organic compounds, and carbon monoxide mainly emitted from vehicles.

For example, the BECCS idea of taking carbon from power plants does not account for the massive emissions from all other sources — such as the tailpipes of our cars.

Third, new technologies, such as underground coal gasification and especially carbon capture and storage, can — if given substantial financial support — reduce emissions substantially from coal use in power plants and industrial facilities.

Steven Davis of the University of California, Irvine, and Robert Socolow of Princeton (best known for his work dividing the climate challenge into carbon «wedges») have written «Commitment accounting of CO2 emissions,» a valuable new paper in Environmental Research Letters showing the value of shifting from tracking annual emissions of carbon dioxide from power plants to weighing the full amount of carbon dioxide that such plants, burning coal or gas, could emit during their time in service.

While the fossil fuel industry tries it hands at by squandering billions of dollars of research on unfeasible technical solutions such as geological sequestration of carbon emissions from power plants, soils are a natural solution which has been proven for hundreds of millions of years of biological and evolutionary history.

But «there are currently no demonstrated technologies to control CO2 emissions from large coal - fired power plants such as Scherer,» Mr. Williams notes.

CDR techniques complement carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) methods that primarily focus on reducing CO2 emissions from point sources such as fossil fuel power plants.»

CCS is a technology that allows reduction of fossil fuel emissions by capturing CO2 from large emitters (such as coal or gas power plants and the steel industry) and storing it underground.

The announcement gives the EPA a legal basis for capping emissions from major sources such as coal power plants, as well as cars.

Experiences in developed nations such as Japan could provide good examples for achieving public consensus on coal use by showing how CCT uses coal more efficiently; that it is much cleaner than conventional plants; and that emissions from plants using CCT are very close to that of gas - fired power plants.

The Clean Power Plan reached beyond individual plant upgrades by allowing generators unable to meet its emission standards to offset their power from lower carbon - emitting resources, such as renewaPower Plan reached beyond individual plant upgrades by allowing generators unable to meet its emission standards to offset their power from lower carbon - emitting resources, such as renewapower from lower carbon - emitting resources, such as renewables.

There is no such risk for atmospheric CO2 at this time posed by emissions from power plants.

Achieving the Obama Administration's goal to cut greenhouse gases would require major cuts in emissions from coal - fired power plants such as this one in Page, Arizona.

With a proposed rule on light - duty vehicles waiting in the wings, the agency issued today — opening day for the climate talks in Copenhagen — its «endangerment finding» concluding that GHGs pose a threat to both public health and welfare, tests required under the Clean Air Act in order to regulate emissions from point sources, such as power plants, manufacturing plants, and vehicles.

They should never be used to set or justify policies, laws or regulations — such as what the Environmental Protection Agency is about to impose on CO2 emissions from coal - fired power plants.

Our patented technology allows for the low - cost capture of CO2 from stationary emissions sources such as oil production operations, power and steam plants and metals production facilities, while leveraging existing solvent - based gas scrubbing approaches already known to industry.

«Electricity from Renewable Energy and Fossil Fuels with Carbon Capture and Sequestration», the fourth report in the CEF publication series, examines electricity generation through fossil fuel combustion with CO2 capture and sequestration («fossil / CCS»)- a process that removes as much carbon as possible from major emissions sources such as power plants, and stores it in deep geological formations.

While the EPA has, under the Clean Air Act put federal limits on toxic emissions of arsenic, mercury, and lead pollution that power plants emit — as well as on pollutants like sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides — there are currently no such limits on the carbon emissions from new or existing power plants.

As both the House and the Senate grapple with proposed carbon - cutting measures — carbon taxes and «cap - and - trade» schemes for big CO2 emitters such as coal - fired power plants; increased Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for cars, SUVs, and trucks; and mandatory set - asides for clean renewable energy in the mix of energy generation options — emissions from aircraft seem, at least for the time being, to have gone over the heads of most policymakers engaged in the rush to cut carbon emissions.

«To meet the new standards,» the National Journal says: «states will have to form plans that will limit emissions of ozone - forming pollutants from two major sources: stationary sources such as power plants and factories, and transportation» — which will reduce energy intensive economic activity.

[3] Each state has interim targets it must meet beginning in 2020, and the EPA proposed that states use a combination of four «building blocks» to achieve the emissions reductions: (1) improving the efficiency (heat rate) of existing coal - fired power plants; (2) switching from coal - fired power by increasing the use and capacity factor, or efficiency, of natural - gas combined - cycle power plants; (3) using less carbon - intensive generating power, such as renewable energy or nuclear power; and (4) increasing demand - side energy - efficiency measures.

Thus, the problem with the proposals currently being discussed in Congress: They will, for the foreseeable future, direct private investment toward the least expensive emissions reductions (such as burning methane from landfills, purchasing forest land for carbon sequestration, or retrofitting power plants and buildings so they operate more efficiently) rather than toward breakthrough technologies (like low - cost solar energy and carbon capture and storage), which are too expensive to become widely adopted today but which are vital for creating a new energy economy and thus drastically reducing emissions.

Starting at their home page, a recirculating series of photos includes backlit steam clouds from a power plant stack, arguably outright mischaracterization of what «greenhouse gas emissions» from such plants really are.

On Tuesday, the governments of California and six other western states as well as four Canadian provinces proposed a new plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 15 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 using a similar cap - and - trade market — and would expand such regulations to encompass not just CO2 from power plants but also cars and trucks as well as other greenhouse gases, such as potent methane.

It is because so little energy is being used, and because alternatives are ruled out ab initio (the model contains no nuclear power, and no technology for storing away carbon emissions from fossil fuels; natural gas prices rise strongly and coal plants are retired well before they are clapped out) that the model ends up with such a high percentage of renewables; indeed given the premise it's slightly surprising it doesn't end up with even more.

Warming from decade to decade can also be affected by human factors such as variations in the emissions, from coal - fired power plants and other pollution sources, of greenhouse gases and of aerosols (airborne particles that can have both warming and cooling effects).

But over the past three years, as they have devoted tremendous resources to the fight against TransCanada Corp.'s proposed oil pipeline, they potentially have diverted vast resources from other goals many environmentalists consider more important, such as limiting power plant pollution and taxing carbon emissions.

Under the proposed rule, EPA would require states to reduce CO2 emission through a variety of activities, including (1) Increasing the efficiency of existing power plants; (2) switching from coal - fired power plants to natural gas plants; (3) increasing renewable energy sources, such as nuclear, wind or solar; and (4) reducing the demand for energy through enhanced energy efficiency.