Sentences with phrase «far less coal»

Not exact matches

But six miles inland, something just as unusual, if far less gaudy, is taking shape — the first coal - fired power plant in the Middle East.

The EPA is reportedly drafting a far less ambitious rule that would focus on improving efficiency at coal plants.

«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.»

Although far less common than in the past, the processing of coal and, yes, steel continues in this part of the Ohio River Valley.

Thus the stage is set for some soft but no less entertaining (and very timely) satire on commercialism in contemporary society, particularly in the burgeoning teen pop music market (which is further raked over the coals by a spot - on, if brief, opening parody of boy bands).

A study of greenhouse gas - emissions by the Advanced Power and Energy Program at the University of California at Irvine shows fuel - cell vehicles running on hydrogen derived from natural gas ultimately create far less GHG emissions than BEVs running off the U.S. grid, which is powered mostly by coal and natural gas.

(One phrase that reverberates almost as much as green jobs these days in climate - energy discussions, with far less credibility, is «clean coal.»)

It says nothing about people rushing to stoke the engine with more and more coal, or how much actual coal is added (thus the actual range of speeds to expect), or the possibility of a precipice with bridge out up ahead (runaway GW), how dangerous that might be at various speeds, entailing greater or less number of deaths, or how far or close that precipice is, which we don't know either (except we have some fossil evidence of train wrecks in which 90 % of life died, so we know it could be bad).

But the windmills killing birds does far less damage to the environment than a comparably sized (in terms of power output) coal or nuclear power plant.

Re 273 — not that I am prone to agreeing with Edward Greisch, but those numbers are presumably before profit, or... Well, the number for coal seems about right, so far as I know, though it is much less than what anyone pays for retail electricity now.

The U.S. consumes a lot of coal, but still far less than China.

Nader said, «We do not need nuclear power... We have a far greater amount of fossil fuels in this country than we're owning up to... the tar sands... oil out of shale... methane in coal beds...» Sierra Club consultant Amory Lovins said, «Coal can fill the real gaps in our fuel economy with only a temporary and modest (less than twofold at peak) expansion of mining.&racoal beds...» Sierra Club consultant Amory Lovins said, «Coal can fill the real gaps in our fuel economy with only a temporary and modest (less than twofold at peak) expansion of mining.&raCoal can fill the real gaps in our fuel economy with only a temporary and modest (less than twofold at peak) expansion of mining.»

While solar is a far less polluting energy source than coal or natural gas, many panel makers are nevertheless grappling with a hazardous waste problem.

«The study seems an outlier in saying that when «all known costs» are considered, the average U.S. cost of producing electricity from established coal - fired plants is far less than new wind - power generation,»

A further 35 % or so came from coal, less than 15 % from nuclear power and the rest from a hotch - potch of other sources.

Those who study energy patterns say we are in a gradual transition from oil and coal to natural gas, a fuel that emits far less carbon but still contributes to global warming.

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.

«The study seems an outlier in saying that when «all known costs» are considered, the average U.S. cost of producing electricity from established coal - fired plants is far less than new wind - power generation,» PolitiFact found.

The government has so far extracted less than four million tons of coal from the mine.

With an estimated social cost of carbon — a damage estimate of global warming pollution — of $ 65 (far less than other estimates), the GED for coal - fired generators is 4.7 cents / kWh.

An analysis made public on Friday showed that new onshore wind plants due to come online in 2016 will cost... far less [per kWh] than coal, biomass and other forms of energy production.

As you say Giles, Macfarlane sees wave and geothermal as far less a near term threat to coal and gas, so his strategy is to back them with a few meagre tax payer funded handouts while we let the carbon giants continue to pollute our otherwise wonderful nation for free!

«The DLP will push for the retention of our cheap, clean and efficient coal fired power stations and look to a more transitional model of using coal gasification and other clean coal technologies that would be far less costly to the taxpayer, while producing a secure and solid baseline for our grid.»

Indeed, some private sector analysts think there will be further coal - to - gas switch in power generation in 2013, though much less than occurred in 2012.

More dramatically, fear of radiation led to extraordinary safety requirements for nuclear power plants, far in excess of controls imposed on other high - risk industrial facilities, which made nuclear power less cost - competitive and led to more reliance on coal.

The 1.2 billion people who live in India use far less electricity than do Americans, but the nation's growing economy and its dependance upon coal pose major global warming threats.

In the short term gas - fired power stations could be used to «fill the gaps» when renewable energy was not available (gas has about half the greenhouse emissions of coal, and produces far less other air pollution); in the longer term Australia could change to 100 % renewables - generated electricity.

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].

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.

Other alternatives such as fuel from foodstocks, liquifaction of coal, nuclear, solar thermal, windmills, etc. are pretty far removed from the Moore's Law enabling factors so you're on target there but you didn't need to spray the guy with a mini-gun when far less would suffice to make your point.

Nevertheless, as shown in the figure, these combined capacity factors for wind and solar are far less than those for the dispatchable technologies — natural gas, coal, and nuclear.

While there is continued emphasis on developing «Carbon Capture and Sequestration» to ensure a continued life for Somewhat Less Dirty Coal (euphemistically called «Clean Coal «-RRB-, there are win - win - win options for geoengineering and carbon capture, like biochar, that merit far greater attention and active pursuit.

Gas is far better than coal (less CO2 / energy delivered, less other pollution), and it is interesting to see them promoting it versus coal with global warming arguments.

Then again, to the extent that natural gas substitutes for coal in electricity generation (and fugitive methane emissions are low) and electric vehicles powered by relatively clean electricity substitute for gasoline and diesel, CO2 emissions over the next two decades could be far less than expected 10 years ago.

The report also found that burning natural gas generated far less damage than coal, although still significant: a sample of 498 natural gas fueled plants (71 percent of gas - generated electricity) produced $ 740 million in total nonclimate damages in 2005.

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 commentary, published in the British scientific journal, Nature Climate Change, estimated the impact of consuming the fuel from oilsands deposits â $» without factoring in greenhouse gas emissions associated with extraction and production â $» would be far less harmful to the planet's atmosphere than consuming all of the world's coal resources.

Much of this reduction is due to far less use of the state's only remaining coal - fired power station, the Northern, which, as of 2013, was being run for only the warmer half of each year.

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.

Coal burning in power stations is far more efficient than smoky inefficent open hearths and consequently far less particulate carbon gets into the air from each ton of coal buCoal burning in power stations is far more efficient than smoky inefficent open hearths and consequently far less particulate carbon gets into the air from each ton of coal bucoal burnt.

As Brown reviews, nuclear power is far less of a risk to public health than coal generation, and this difference is magnified when factoring in the health impacts of climate change.

Wind power, a viable energy source that costs far less than nuclear and coal power and contributes almost no pollutants to the environment, seems to many of us to be almost ideal.

Natural gas emits far less carbon dioxide than coal when it burns, and new reserves have driven down its price, greatly expanding its use in power plants, homes, and businesses.

Too bad, as the New York Times point out, that even though natural gas does have a far less impact on global warming than does coal, if we're going to reduce carbon emissions by 2050 enough to prevent the worst of climate change, the increase in natural gas usage won't cut it.

Simply replacing the NE coal firing with 60 % less CO2 clean and cheap CCGT you have to go woud be by far the most effective short - medium term solution for the USA, no debate required if the facts are what matters.

Burning more oil and gas, but less coal, saw the US's emissions fall 2.6 % in 2015 and they are projected to fall a further 1.7 % in 2016.