Sentences with phrase «energy schemes go»

As far as alternative energy schemes go, this one almost sounds too good to be true: Industrial Nanotech has just unveiled its nanotech - based line of thermal insulating paint, Nansulate, which - when properly applied inside of a structure's walls - promises to effectively generate electricity.

As far as alternative energy schemes go, this one almost sounds too good to be true: Industrial Nanotech has just unveiled its nanotech - based line of thermal insulating paint, Nansulate, which - when properly applied inside of a structure's walls -

Not exact matches

This is an incredibly difficult question to answer for a variety of reasons, most importantly because over the years our once vaunted «beautiful» style of play has become a shadow of it's former self, only to be replaced by a less than stellar «plug and play» mentality where players play out of position and adjustments / substitutions are rarely forthcoming before the 75th minute... if you look at our current players, very few would make sense in the traditional Wengerian system... at present, we don't have the personnel to move the ball quickly from deep - lying position, efficient one touch midfielders that can make the necessary through balls or the disciplined and pacey forwards to stretch defences into wide positions, without the aid of the backs coming up into the final 3rd, so that we can attack the defensive lanes in the same clinical fashion we did years ago... on this current squad, we have only 1 central defender on staf, Mustafi, who seems to have any prowess in the offensive zone or who can even pass two zones through so that we can advance play quickly out of our own end (I have seen some inklings that suggest Holding might have some offensive qualities but too early to tell)... unfortunately Mustafi has a tendency to get himself in trouble when he gets overly aggressive on the ball... from our backs out wide, we've seen pace from the likes of Bellerin and Gibbs and the spirited albeit offensively stunted play of Monreal, but none of these players possess the skill - set required in the offensive zone for the new Wenger scheme which requires deft touches, timely runs to the baseline and consistent crossing, especially when Giroud was playing and his ratio of scored goals per clear chances was relatively low (better last year though)... obviously I like Bellerin's future prospects, as you can't teach pace, but I do worry that he regressed last season, which was obvious to Wenger because there was no way he would have used Ox as the right side wing - back so often knowing that Barcelona could come calling in the off - season, if he thought otherwise... as for our midfielders, not a single one, minus the more confident Xhaka I watched played for the Swiss national team a couple years ago, who truly makes sense under the traditional Wenger model... Ramsey holds onto the ball too long, gives the ball away cheaply far too often and abandons his defensive responsibilities on a regular basis (doesn't score enough recently to justify): that being said, I've always thought he does possess a little something special, unfortunately he thinks so too... Xhaka is a little too slow to ever boss the midfield and he tends to telegraph his one true strength, his long ball play: although I must admit he did get a bit better during some points in the latter part of last season... it always made me wonder why whenever he played with Coq Wenger always seemed to play Francis in a more advanced role on the pitch... as for Coq, he is way too reckless at the wrong times and has exhibited little offensive prowess yet finds himself in and around the box far too often... let's face it Wenger was ready to throw him in the trash heap when injuries forced him to use Francis and then he had the nerve to act like this was all part of a bigger Wenger constructed plan... he like Ramsey, Xhaka and Elneny don't offer the skills necessary to satisfy the quick transitory nature of our old offensive scheme or the stout defensive mindset needed to protect the defensive zone so that our offensive players can remain aggressive in the final third... on the front end, we have Ozil, a player of immense skill but stunted by his physical demeanor that tends to offend, the fact that he's been played out of position far too many times since arriving and that the players in front of him, minus Sanchez, make little to no sense considering what he has to offer (especially Giroud); just think about the quick counter-attack offence in Real or the space and protection he receives in the German National team's midfield, where teams couldn't afford to focus too heavily on one individual... this player was a passing «specialist» long before he arrived in North London, so only an arrogant or ignorant individual would try to reinvent the wheel and / or not surround such a talent with the necessary components... in regards to Ox, Walcott and Welbeck, although they all possess serious talents I see them in large part as headless chickens who are on the injury table too much, lack the necessary first - touch and / or lack the finishing flair to warrant their inclusion in a regular starting eleven; I would say that, of the 3, Ox showed the most upside once we went to a back 3, but even he became a bit too consumed by his pending contract talks before the season ended and that concerned me a bit... if I had to choose one of those 3 players to stay on it would be Ox due to his potential as a plausible alternative to Bellerin in that wing - back position should we continue to use that formation... in Sanchez, we get one of the most committed skill players we've seen on this squad for some years but that could all change soon, if it hasn't already of course... strangely enough, even he doesn't make sense given the constructs of the original Wenger offensive model because he holds onto the ball too long and he will give the ball up a little too often in the offensive zone... a fact that is largely forgotten due to his infectious energy and the fact that the numbers he has achieved seem to justify the means... finally, and in many ways most crucially, Giroud, there is nothing about this team or the offensive system that Wenger has traditionally employed that would even suggest such a player would make sense as a starter... too slow, too inefficient and way too easily dispossessed... once again, I think he has some special skills and, at times, has showed some world - class qualities but he's lack of mobility is an albatross around the necks of our offence... so when you ask who would be our best starting 11, I don't have a clue because of the 5 or 6 players that truly deserve a place in this side, 1 just arrived, 3 aren't under contract beyond 2018 and the other was just sold to Juve... man, this is theraputic because following this team is like an addiction to heroin without the benefits

But Aldy says that a National Clean Energy Standard scheme «can be more cost - effective than exercising EPA authority to go after emissions.»

Things go bad when an This high - energy romantic comedy follows three bachelors, speeding through life and scheming on women.

A carbon fee + dividend scheme such as suggested by James Hansen would not only go a long way to «curb massively the fossil fuel use», but it would also have the added beneficial effects of slightly redistributing income, improving public health, stimulating the economy and greatly accelerating the inevitable transition to renewable energy.

C. Technically, it is still possible to solve the climate problem, but there are two essential requirements: (1) a simple across - the - board (all fossil fuels) rising carbon fee [2] collected from fossil fuel companies at the domestic source (mine or port of entry), not a carbon price «scheme,» and the money must go to the public, not to government coffers, otherwise the public will not allow the fee to rise as needed for phase - over to clean energy, (2) honest government support for, rather than strangulation of, RD&D (research, development and demonstration) of clean energy technologies, including advanced generation, safe nuclear power.

I believe if we're going to invest in greentard energy schemes at least solar doesn't chop birds and bats up.

Danger of Undermining Emissions Mitigation Efforts If politicians are led to believe that a low - cost technological fix can reduce or eliminate the need for politically difficult actions such as increasing the cost of carbon by cap and trade schemes or taxation, going against the wishes of powerful fossil energy corporations, and getting countries all around the world to agree on climate goals, it is likely to undermine their resolve to deal with the underlying cause of the problem by reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The idea that many other world countries that desire high energy growth using coal fuel regardless of the greenhouse gas emission levels are going to abandon their enormous existing use and future growth of coal fuel because of California's ridiculous climate alarmist driven schemes is totally absurd.

No government is going to pursue the do - nothing «No carbon price» trajectory, which would mean abolishing the Direct Action scheme, the Renewable Energy Target and everything else.

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.

I'm not sure if you are convinced than carbon - o - geddon is really looming or if you have other financial interests or whatever, but enough people know that we face no real threat and we're not going to let you bamboozle the public into disastrous changes to the world's energy infrastructure or let you impose draconian «carbon reduction» schemes that would cripple the world's industrial economies, reduce our standard of living and condemn the people in developing countries to perpetual low energy poverty.

If there isn't going to be a «tipping point» then how do we justify subsidising renewable energy schemes at the expense of security of supply?

In the overall scheme of things, I think that if one is going to build genuinely sustainably, using low carbon, low embodied energy materials sourced fairly close to the site, the issue of excess consumption I would argue is potentially less important, particularly when space isn't an issue.

Herdan also said Europe - wide carbon pricing for both Emissions Trading Schemes and non-ETS will be important going forward, as will creating a «true Energy Union» throughout the EU.