Sentences with phrase «even less coal»

Evidence from the Coal Authority to a 2001 House of Lords Select committee suggested that the UK had even less coal.

It is expected that even less coal will be used next winter, when more gas pipes are in place for heating.

Not exact matches

In some coal states in the Midwest and the South, electricity costs even less than that, and it will be a long time before solar is competitive in those regions.

Quite simply, the world will be burning less oil, less coal, and maybe even less natural gas.

«Some were even saying that fracking and natural gas would be a lesser evil than coal.

«He's targeting the largest share of coal production from an energy source that provides the largest share of U.S. electricity even now — removing coal will create a far less diverse energy supply and damages economies in coal states.»

Even in the United States — where much has been made of the switch away from coal to less carbon - intensive gas — coal is making a comeback.

It produces less carbon dioxide emissions than coal for electricity or gasoline and diesel for fuel, but even a small amount of natural gas release — which is essentially methane — packs a greenhouse gas punch about 30 times more powerful than the same amount of carbon dioxide.

Even China's efforts to combat those rising concentrations — in part by switching from burning coal to capturing the power latent in rivers like the Yangtze — falter in the face of global warming, as a result of less water in those rivers due to drought and the dwindling glaciers of the Tibetan Plateau.

Even though these newer steam engines burned less coal, the proliferation of steam engines throughout the coal - fired British Empire erased any energy savings.

Shell states that tar sands are less damaging that coal: Well since when was coal and oil used to the same ends unless they are talking about widespread adaption of CTL technology which could happen in some countries with large scale coal rserves I guess but even I doubt that CTL projects will scale to 3 — 5 mbpd which is the projected output of Albertas oil sands come 2030.

But is has some questionable elements: an interior that fits way too tight; an interior that has a design similar to the lowest of Honda offerings (the prominent parking brake button is the same as in the Honda HR - V); an interior that is as bright as a coal mine - even with the color accents; sticker run - up with weird and over priced carbon fiber options; a cup holder than is less effective than a 911's though doesn't exhibit the effort of Porsche; no room for anything more than your wallet (the front compartment is filled with electrics / electronics).

Even though these newer steam engines burned less coal, the proliferation of steam engines throughout the coal - fired British Empire erased any energy savings.

On the climate front, discussions of ways to limit global warming seem more focused on capturing stray emissions of methane (more on that anon) than on pressing for ways to promote it as an alternative to coal, at least as a bridge to even less - polluting energy sources.

The oil sands are still a tiny part of the world's carbon problem — they account for less than a tenth of one percent of global CO2 emissions — but to many environmentalists they are the thin end of the wedge, the first step along a path that could lead to other, even dirtier sources of oil: producing it from oil shale or coal.

Even solar is thwarted because it would mean that we might need to burn less coal since a cetain amount of energy would be produced by solar.

Clinton is right — we desperately need to begin the less - than - sexy work of revamping our infrastructure and doing the cost - benefit analysis that will pave the way for well - thought out projects in solar and wind, conservation, and even nuclear and improved efficiency at coal plants needs to be on the table.

Moreover, even if methane leakage were to remain modest in some areas, long - term climate models suggest that warming trends have less to do with the rate of methane leakage and more to do with other variables, such as the thermal efficiency of future coal plants and whether the switch to gas is permanent or a bridge to zero - carbon energy.

Even with the logic in driving efficiency, doesn't it still make sense to have an «all of the above» plan in shifting to less - polluting energy options, given how a shift from coal to natural gas — while not perfect by any means — also syncs with environmental goals related to other pollutants (mercury, etc.)?

But there's mounting evidence that the U.S. — and even the world at large — may be deciding that it prefers to use less coal.

Power generators are turning away from coal for a host of reasons: In some instances natural gas is cheaper; many states are requiring utilities to generate a certain portion of electricity from renewable resources; individual cities (and even an entire Canadian province) have decided to stop purchasing electricity created by burning coal; and new Environmental Protection Agency regulations are making it more expensive and less economical to use coal plants.

A new 1,000 - page Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report appears to ignore both nuclear power and shale gas — even though both these energy sources emit far less CO2 than does coal.

That makes high - ash Carmichael coal even less appealing.

While ASEAN is already making a transition away from older, less efficient subcritical stations, towards HELE coal - fuelled facilities, scope exists for even greater gains.

Burning coal, for example, also produces copious quantities of greenhouse gasses (even with «clean coal» technologies) and our coal reserves are decidedly less limited than our oil reserves.

Coal today looks even less promising than the alternatives.

Public policy can't make Texas more densely populated (in the short or even medium run) or cooler, but it could promote public transportation, increase gasoline and electricity prices, and shift electricity production towards less carbon intensive alternatives to coal.

According to this chart PEF, and even RDF and unprocessed MSW, generate significantly less Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) the cause of «Acid Rain» than when using Coal.

To meet the 2030 targets, the 65 % RES will help, but Germany will still definitely need additional national instruments to even half coal by 2030 (which is more or less the official target for the energy sector).

Even if coal consumption increased by 3 percent to 3.90 billion tons in 2017 as the Global Carbon Project report said, it is still far less than the 4 billion tons in 2015, let alone challenging the 4.24 billion tons peak in 2013.

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.

Another option that has received even less attention would be for EPA to drop its reliance on CCS and instead point to ultra-supercritical coal plants as the basis for the new source standards.

Natural gas generates more than 50 % less greenhouse gas emissions than coal, not even including the many harmful particulate pollutants coal emits.

Megaprojects (coal, oil, or renewable) seldom much benefit the poor, or even the middle class, in lesser developed nations.

They even had Santas giving out «Clean Coal» (reminder: that is» somewhat less dirty coal»Coal» (reminder: that is» somewhat less dirty coal»coal»....

In the last few years it has made even less given the rapid fall of oil, coal, and natural gas prices, which have made «green energy» even less economically competitive with fossil fuels than it already was.

Moreover, in their calculations the consultant completely ignored the energy used while running the coal plant itself, including the pumps, fans, pollution controls, and other auxiliary equipment, which makes it even less efficient.

FirstEnergy continues to fight against full disclosure of details in its bid to have Ohio ratepayers guarantee sales for three less profitable coal plants plus the Davis - Besse nuclear plant, even as it adds new rate proposals.

Jerry's model indicates that no New York Marcellus shale gas wells would pay for themselves (break even) at less than $ 8 mcf (which is roughly equivalent to $ 8 per million Btus) To put that price into perspective, coal is forecast to be $ 4 MBtu out until at least 2040.

Since much RE now costs the same or less than coal, oil their real cost is Zero or even profitable and far less costly as fossil fuel costs rise..

«The temperature change over the last century, even if it were all due to man, is so much less than the models predict,» said Lindzen, who has received government funding for his research during Republican and Democratic administrations, but hasn't conducted any research for oil or coal companies.

What Lloyd and Cumming are implying, but not saying, is that the coal - fired power stations are so poorly designed or managed that they can not reduce their rate of pollution, even when they are generating less power.

The authors have failed to demonstrate that the cost of wind energy is less than the cost of coal - fired generation, or that the cost comparison between coal and wind is even relevant, comparable, and includes all of the costs associated with wind energy.

Even in the United States, different interests help shape different attitudes: Poorer Americans in states more dependent upon cheap coal electricity are far less likely to support policies that would cost jobs or significantly increase energy prices than are wealthier Americans on the coasts, whose energy supply is already much cleaner.

Even less expensive than when the Chinese use coal.

«The problem is that if Big Dirty Coal Generation can sell a MWH for even $ 0.01 less than Clean Solar Producers, the utility MUST buy from BDCG...»

Switching to a high percentage of wind power will raise domestic energy costs and make the US industries even less competitive against China / India who rely heavily on coal - based electricity.

Going forward, more filtration may be the best we can hope for (and even that will continue to be a fight), though really, from a health perspective, the only good future for coal would be less of it.

When cap and trade or any schema that internalizes cabron costs comes, the situation vis a vis coal will be even less favorable.

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