Sentences with phrase «expensive than coal»

«The actual cost of renewables is likely not merely to be more expensive but orders of magnitude more expensive than coal or nuclear»

But the nation's new law, which will mandate utility companies to buy all available renewable power — even if it's more expensive than coal — should be a clear sign that the US is falling even further behind in the clean energy race.

Lomborg makes the usual arguments; wind is too inefficient, it's more expensive than coal, and it's unreliable because the wind isn't always blowing.

Even if they are more expensive than coal and oil for now, assuming we don't include the externalities and costs to our environment.

The exciting thing is that most of that growth happened when wind power was still more expensive than coal and natural gas without subsidies, but we're reaching the point where that's no longer the case.

I read that a New Zealand study showed that wind power is less expensive than coal with carbon capture.

As in past years, Mr. Gore used his marathon internet broadcast to promote unreliable wind and solar power, sources that are many times more expensive than coal.

She added, however, that in Missouri, wind energy has become less expensive than coal, and the state's solar energy industry has expanded significantly in recently years.

Both will still produce power that is more expensive than coal, but Google believes that this will change with continued investment in the technologies used and with others coming on board as companies begin to realise the benefits to be gained.

In that post he helped develop Google's goal of seeking to make renewable energy less expensive than coal, abbreviated as RE < C.

Many other countries also have requirements that grid operators priorities the dispatch of power from renewable sources, even if it is more expensive than coal - fired baseload plants.

Nuclear power is more expensive than coal, at least when coal doesn't have to pay for its externalities, and so is not going to happen here.

For another, although wind and nuclear are both more expensive than coal, they aren't all that expensive.

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.

CCS really amounts to a combined GHG and natural gas hedge which, in a world of really expensive gas, allows you to maintain lower electricity prices than you perhaps otherwise would be able to as you can continue to use relatively cheap and plentiful coal while capturing and storing the emissions.

Currently, nuclear and wind energy (as well as clean coal) are between 25 and 75 percent more expensive than old - fashioned coal at current prices (not including all the hidden health and environmental costs of coal), and so it will take a stiff charge on coal to induce rapid replacement of obsolete plants.

The shift would reduce economic output by between 2 - 6 percent by 2050, because of the costs of building a cleaner energy system based on low - carbon energies that are more expensive than abundant coal, the IPCC said.

Although solar thermal collectors are better than photovoltaic panels or wind turbines at generating reliable power around the clock, solar thermal power is also expensive; at present energy costs, it would require government subsidies to compete with coal and natural gas, which can generate electricity much more cheaply.

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.

In addition, recent air quality rules will make building and operating a coal plant much more expensive than in the past.

1) That «clean» coal technology is currently far more expensive than existing renewable energy alternatives — solar and wind.

In Indiana, Duke has already acquired $ 133 million in IRS credits and more than $ 350 million from Indiana and local governments to build the most expensive power plant ever build in a state that burns more coal than any, except Texas.

In the Maryland suburbs of Washington DC, I buy 100 % wind - generated electricity through PEPCO Energy Services, and it is only slightly more expensive than PEPCO's «standard service» which is about 57 % coal, 35 % nuclear, 5 % natural gas, and 1 % oil.

-- Wind energy is still more expensive than gas or coal generated electricity.

The 2016 version of Stacy and Taylor's report similarly claimed ``... electricity from new wind and solar power is 2.5 to 5 times more expensive than electricity from existing coal and nuclear power.»

``... electricity from new wind and solar power is 2.5 to 5 times more expensive than electricity from existing coal and nuclear power.»

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

«Our study shows that on average, electricity from new wind resources is nearly four times more expensive than from existing nuclear and nearly three times more expensive than from existing coal,» according to a summary of Stacy and Taylor's 2015 report found on IER's website.

While this is more expensive than the current cost of market power at $ 32 / MWh, solar has no fuel costs, no risk of fuel cost increases, and no water or air pollution, coal ash clean - up, or nuclear waste costs.

And if you factor in coal's devastating public - health costs, it's already much more expensive than solar or wind.

An IER study shows that the levelized cost [vii] of new wind capacity is 2.7 times more expensive than the levelized cost of existing coal - fired capacity and the levelized cost of new solar photovoltaic capacity is 3.5 times as expensive as the levelized cost of existing coal - fired capacity.

Even if coal were FREE, coal - fired power will ALWAYS be more expensive than solar.

In the most dramatic example, the Anglo - Australian giant Rio Tinto in July sold its stake in the world's most expensive coal mine in Mozambique — effectively writing off more than $ 3 billion.

Because natural gas is a considerably more expensive fuel than coal, it takes a substantial CO2 cost to overcome this fuel cost disadvantage — about $ 30 / ton, on current fuel price expectations in the U.S.. On the other hand, consider pending investments to add new generating capacity in the United States over the next few decades.

Depending on what kind of technology you're using, solar could either be cheaper than coal, gas, and nuclear... or it could be one of the most expensive energy sources out there.

Between 2000 and 2008, coal was significantly less expensive than natural gas, and coal supplied about 50 % of total U.S. generation.

One reason that wind energy has lagged so far behind is the perception is that wind farms are more expensive to build and operate than coal fired power plants - a notion that Jacobson and Masters dispute.

Given that health and environmental costs of coal are another two to 4.3 cents per kilowatt hour, wind energy is unequivocally less expensive than is coal energy.»

For the minority who use common sense, very little data is necessary to know that a «low carbon» economy is far less efficient than an economy run on fossil fuel energy [coal, preferably, because it is the least expensive power].

Natural gas - fired combined cycle units are more efficient at over 50 % now, less expensive and quicker to build than coal - based systems.

However, installing these pollution controls can add hundreds of millions of dollars to the cost of a new coal plant, making them more expensive than other renewable options, and discouraging their adoption.

If the answer is no — meaning that it is more expensive to produce electricity from that coal unit than it is to produce electricity from a competing source — then it is considered uneconomic.

However, the rule references a report from IHS Markit (sponsored by NEI, EEI, and the U.S. Chamber) that says keeping a diverse portfolio of resources will be less expensive than if all coal and nuclear were to disappear... a ridiculous and irrelevant assumption.

That's why oil, coal, and gas will not be easily displaced by present - day renewable - energy technologies that are expensive and intermittent, or by energy - efficiency measures that are more expensive to implement than their proponents have been willing to admit.

Adding carbon and capture technology to new coal plants makes electricity from coal more expensive than energy from solar thermal and wind power, even when «firming costs» are included for alternatives (see table).

And while oil is getting expensive to extract, there are a lot of BTUs out there in gas, coal, tar, and oil shales that probably can be extracted at no greater cost than petroleum today.

Two - thirds of existing Indian coal generation is now more expensive than solar or wind generation, and keeping these power plants running costs India billions every year, according to Greenpeace research comparing CEA 2015 - 2016 coal power generation data to new renewable energy project bids.

In the case of South Africa, RES from PV and wind (circa RND 0.5 — 0.6 / kWh) is cheaper than elec from coal stations (RND 0.8) and the nuclear programme was cancelled — too expensive.

Two - thirds of existing Indian coal generation is now more expensive than solar or wind generation

I guess that's why PV & wind are more expensive in South Africa than coal....