Sentences with phrase «energy than burning coal»

And just for your information there is other ways of making electric energy than burning coal.

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.

Drilling for natural gas has been promoted because it burns more cleanly than coal and can reduce dependence on imported energy sources, and it can also bring jobs to economically battered regions of the state.

Efforts to use biomass rather than burning it in the fields could help ease China's energy needs, displacing coal and cutting air pollution

If China's use of renewable and nuclear energy grows at a plausible rate, and the country captures some of its emissions from coal - burning power stations and keeps making improvements in energy efficiency, by 2050 its total emissions could end up 4 per cent lower than today, says Zhou.

The sentence marked with an asterisk was changed from «In fact, fly ash — a by - product from burning coal for power — and other coal waste contains up to 100 times more radiation than nuclear waste» to «In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant — a by - product from burning coal for electricity — carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy.»

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).

So it would cost less to insulate every home than to burn coal to provide the energy now used to heat and cool uninsulated houses.

Yet, even if every planned reactor in China was to be built, the country would still rely on burning coal for more than 50 percent of its electric power — and the Chinese nuclear reactors would provide at best roughly the same amount of energy to the developing nation as does the existing U.S. fleet.

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 U.S. Department of Energy aims to make electricity from the sun cheaper than that from burning coal or natural gas

Eighty - five percent of those CO2 emissions come from burning coal, oil and natural gas, which are providing more than 80 % of the world's energy; most of the rest coming from deforestation.

That means, for a coal plant, we'd have to burn — and so pay for — an extra 10 - 40 % more coal with CCS than we would without it, and the electricity from that extra energy / coal consumed is not available to consumers for electricity.

Revelle and Seuss's «Grand Geophysical Experiment» — they had the luxury in the late»50s to define it in that geologically detached way — will dump thousands of gigatonnes of carbon from gas, oil and coal into the atmosphere as CO2 as they are burned for energy a million times faster than these fossil fuels were made by nature.

1bbb: Coal ashes and cinders contain so much uranium and thorium that more energy goes into coal cinders and ash in the form of uranium and thorium than you get by burning the cCoal ashes and cinders contain so much uranium and thorium that more energy goes into coal cinders and ash in the form of uranium and thorium than you get by burning the ccoal cinders and ash in the form of uranium and thorium than you get by burning the coalcoal.

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.

Peak coal may be a lot closer than most people think, especially if we go into gasification or liquefying, which take considerable energy leaving less net energy gain than if we just burn the coal directly.

But his prescription was different than those of Mr. Barnes and Dr. Hansen, focusing instead on an aggressive policy to deploy new energy technologies for electricity and transportation and a quick phaseout of traditional coal - burning power plants.

All and all have there not been less injuries associated with nuclear energy than those resulting from coal mining and exposure to air contaminants from burning coal?

Energy prices will rise in the future, especially if we take climate change as seriously as it deserves; sustainable energy is more expensive than burningEnergy prices will rise in the future, especially if we take climate change as seriously as it deserves; sustainable energy is more expensive than burningenergy is more expensive than burning coal.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, China was responsible for more than 80 percent of the growth in global coal burning since 2000, and currently burns half of the world's coal.

John Sterman, a professor at the MIT Sloan School of Management, published a paper earlier this year that argued burning pellets would release more carbon dioxide than coal in the short term because it was a less efficient source of energy.

Weiss said that, while natural gas burns cleaner, the NETL study concluded that the end - to - end emissions involved in moving U.S. natural gas to an LNG export facility, then liquefying it, then shipping it across the ocean, then de-liquefying it, and shipping it to users in other countries, would be as energy and emissions intensive, or more, than using regionally produced coal — i.e., because of the LNG export supply chain, it has no advantage over coal.

The problem, according to many energy analysts, is that burning pellets creates more global warming pollution than coal, not less.

Natural gas is often advertised as a more sustainable energy source than coal, given that it releases fewer pollutants when it burns.

Even Obama administration officials have said gas was a «bridge fuel» to a green energy economy because it emits less carbon dioxide than coal when burned for power.

When burned, natural gas produces energy with fewer CO2 emissions than coal.

Although both are hydrocarbon energy sources, mining and burning coal has a far, far greater impact on the environment than does recovering and burning natural gas.

Speaking to more than 500 people at the Kansas Wind and Renewable Energy Conference, Hansen called for policymakers to phase out coal - burning power plants by 2030.

This removes nasty pollutants like sulfur and nitrogen oxides so that the syngas burns «cleaner» than coal, according to the Department of Energy.

Coal is dirty, burning it emits more greenhouse gasses than any other single source, mining it destroys mountains, streams, and rivers... but it DOES give us energy, to which I'm thankful for it.

Our GHG stabilisation targets are also based on risks assessed on a more benign history than the future will likely be — unless we push much harder targets for renewable energy penetration, and demand the absolute reduction of large scale coal burning.

Senator LEYONHJELM: So you think Loy Yang, Yallourn and Hazelwood burn more coal now than prior to the penetration of wind energy capacity into the grid?

In particular, she evaluates whether generating energy via the burning of wood pellets, or biomass, puts less carbon into the atmosphere than burning coal.

Burning wood, which is celebrated by governments as a sustainable energy resource, actually produces more CO2 emissions than coal.

In the rapidly urbanizing «third» world, that property, as well as exploitation of a local rather than an imported energy source, is driving its use and avoiding of some of the effects from coal burning in and around many Asian urban centers much in the news lately.

They are counter-productive, continuing a political debate that the consensus is unable to win, instead of focusing on the real issue at hand — if this planet is going to consume six times more energy than today in sixty years, we had best take steps to make sure that energy isn't derived from burning coal.

Released on the heels of a July 2012 article in Rolling Stone by Dr. Bill McKibben warning that we had already discovered five times as much oil, gas, and coal than scientists concluded we could safely burn for energy, the ad reflected growing public concern regarding the climate change threat and a reaction to the continued presence of outright climate denialists bred by Exxon decades before.

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.

Which makes me a bit torn on this one: While biomass electric generation is certainly a good thing, and anything that gets us (the collective human we) away from burning coal is undeniably positive environmentally, it seems to me that there is a better solution than processing wood pellets in Florida and shipping them to the EU to generate power... Even if it appears from Green Circle's estimate of net energy gain comes out positive.

Also on TreeHugger Coal in China China's Coal Fires Burn 20 Million Tons of Coal Per Year Mercury From Chinese Coal Use Pollutes Oregon's Willamette River Huge Drop in Chinese Birth Defects After Local Coal Plant Closes Teacher Pension Funds Investing In Chinese Coal Industries Environmental Awareness in China Pollution in China is Worse Than Ever, Citizens Say China's Grassroots Green NGOs Double in Three Years China's Newest Anti-Pollution Weapon: A Map Health and the Environment Asthma: Treehugger and Planet Green Planet Green: Food and Health 5 Health Benefits of Green Energy Sources

Burning coal is responsible for more than a third of all energy - related U.S.

Yet, for the same energy production, coal burning releases more carbon into the air than burning oil and natural gas releases even less.

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.

The question of a new tax or fee being included in a climate bill has been a controversial issue because many Republicans have long dismissed climate control legislation as nothing more than a new tax on consumers, who would face higher energy prices when more expensive alternative energy like wind and solar power replace dirty - burning coal and oil.

From a climate perspective, the priority is reducing the impact of burning coal, which satisfies more than 70 % of China's energy demand and, under any realistic scenario, will remain a massive part of China's energy mix for decades to come.

We make solar energy available to homeowners, businesses, schools, and government organizations at a lower cost than they pay for energy generated by burning fossil fuels like coal, oil and natural gas.