Sentences with phrase «fossil fuel energy sources which»

Unburnable Carbon refers to fossil fuel energy sources which can not be burnt if the world is to adhere to a given carbon budget.

Not exact matches

On the blackboard, fusing hydrogen atoms produces enormous amounts of heat which can be captured and developed into an energy source, energy that is safe, cheap, does not burn fossil fuels or consume non-renewable resources.

Turns out, $ 750 million worth of State money is going to SolarCity to build solar panels, which will presumably be in high demand as the nation transfers away from fossil fuels and towards renewable energy sources.

«As a developed, industrialised country the UK has to lead the way by ending our dependence on fossil fuels, and investing in clean, renewable sources of energy which we are fortunate enough to be blessed with in the UK,» Christian Aid's senior climate change adviser Alison Doig said.

Having the Belleayre, Gore and Whiteface ski centers join The Climate Reality Project's «I Am Snow 100 %» program is in line with Cuomo's Clean Energy Standard, which requires that half of all electricity used in New York come from renewable sources, rather than fossil fuels, by 2030, the governor's office said in a press release.

The approval of the natural gas - fired plant came at a time when the administration was generally attempting to move away from fossil fuel generation and toward renewable energy generation, per its Reforming Energy Vision, which seeks to make the energy grid more reliant on renewable sources and more effienergy generation, per its Reforming Energy Vision, which seeks to make the energy grid more reliant on renewable sources and more effiEnergy Vision, which seeks to make the energy grid more reliant on renewable sources and more effienergy grid more reliant on renewable sources and more efficient.

Wind power is one of the key sources of renewable energy expected to play an important role in helping to cut emissions and wean society from its dependence on fossil fuels, which means wind - power companies must be prepared to quickly fix mechanical problems that threaten to slow down renewable energy production.

Though he hasn't provided many specifics, Trump has publicly said he is eager to streamline the process and make it as easy as possible for energy companies to extract fossil fuels from public lands, which are the source of about 24 percent of America's fossil fuels, including about 40 percent of all the coal produced in the U.S.

UNGDO, which includes hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling, supplies an energy source which is potentially cleaner than liquid or solid fossil fuels and may provide a route to energy independence for the U.S, say proponents.

Humanity must become aware of the urgent need to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy sources to avoid the catastrophic scenario of using coal as an energy source as well as to replace the current model of development for sustainable development, which, by reverse logistics, with the reuse, recovery and recycling of materials, thus reaching the so - called closed production cycle, could delay the exhaustion of natural resources of the planet Earth.

Which is a better energy source: biofuels or fossil fuels?

A great moment, reflecting the inevitability of diverse responses to climate risk on a variegated planet, came during a plenary panel focused on ways to satisfy fast - growing human energy needs while moving away from burning fossil fuels, which remain the world's dominant energy source.

On one side are the world's industrialized nations, which largely built their wealth through a century of fossil - fuel combustion; on the other, those seeking a path out of poverty that, for the moment, has to depend on the same energy sources, and in many cases also on clearing forests.

But many experts bemoan the loss of years in which scientists were pressing for a push to advance non-polluting energy sources and encourage a shift away from unfettered burning of fossil fuels and forests.

Here's something about which I'm sure we can agree: Fossil fuels will naturally over the course of time become more expensive, more so if we don't bring other sources of energy online.

Once lauded as the future of clean transportation and energy storage in a variety of other applications, hydrogen - based fuel cell systems have a great many barriers to adoption, one of which is lack of hydrogen infrastructure, and the other is the need to develop hydrogen production sources that aren't fossil fuel - based or that require more energy to produce than can be released in the fuel cell.

Second, if divestment were to reduce the financial resources of coal, oil, and gas companies (which it would NOT do), this would only reduce research and development at those same companies of: carbon capture and storage technologies; other key technological breakthroughs; and renewable sources of energy (the fossil fuel companies are carrying out much of the R&D on renewables).

The letter notes that PG&E's proposal — endorsed by anti-nuclear groups NRDC and Sierra Club, which are invested in renewable energy and fossil fuel companies that could benefit from Diablo Canyon's closure — would not replace Diablo Canyon with power from clean energy sources.

Subtitle: At the exact moment in which we need to reduce our reliance on fossil fuel, we are being told that renewable sources can't meet our energy needs.

Tom Steyer, a billionaire energy speculator, is bankrolling an Arizona ballot initiative that would prematurely close the state's sole nuclear plant — which is also America's largest single source of clean energy — and replace it with fossil fuels.

So it appears to me that we are left with the choice between two «imperfect» solutions: one that faces immense political opposition today and the other that «buys us the time» to develop a «more perfect» solution: i.e. a technically and economically viable alternate energy source, which does not depend on fossil fuels.

It may be that urban areas and irrigated areas are also heavily fossil fuel intensive, but they'd also be intensive of any other energy source which might replace CO2 generating ones.

That is actual scientific fact based on the knowledge that fossil fuels are a non-renewable and finite resource, which leads to the disquieting realization that we had better come up with alternative energy sources.

Fossil fuel consumption subsidies in developing countries are welfare transfers that can be differentiated from subsidies in the name of commercializing or sustaining uneconomic energy sources such as on - grid wind or solar, which the United States and other industrialized countries have been subsidizing.

With a share of 100 % renewable energy sources and 12 times the current grid capacity, the balancing capacity of fossil fuel power plants can be reduced to 15 % of the total annual electricity consumption, which represents the maximum possible benefit of transmission for Europe.

Further, increased human - caused CO2 emissions mean more energy use, which results in more human productivity since humans generally use fossil fuel energy to increase their productivity and reduce their dependency on other less reliable and higher cost energy sources.

However, in absolute terms both energy demand and the share being met by fossil fuel are growing faster since 1990 than the growth in new renewable energy sources, which is accelerating, but not yet fast enough to curb the increasing global CO2 trend.

For many years coal was the second largest electricity provider in Illinois, with ample coal reserves in Southern Illinois, but as a fossil fuel which emits CO2, coal is now the whipping boy of the environments and those who believes that renewable energy sources can replace fossil fuels.

Meanwhile, low - carbon sources — in which the IEA includes nuclear and fossil fuels with carbon capture and storage (CCS)-- would more than triple to encompass 70 % of worldwide energy demand in 2050.

I am under the (possibly mistaken) impression that energy companies (which I'll suggest is a more accurate descriptor than fossil fuel industries) are putting resources into alternate energy sources.

And isn't all of the above just a sop to the status quo, in which a diverse array of energy sources dominated by fossil fuels provides the energy for the rest of the economy?

The limits are unfavorable for renewable energy sources (solar and wind power, which are variable in output), at around half of what was set for thermal power - generated (fossil - fuel) electricity.

In the experiment, greenhouse gas emissions in the coming century were assumed to follow a trajectory that climate modelers refer to as the A1B scenario, in which global economic growth is rapid and driven by a balanced portfolio of energy sources, including fossil fuels, renewables, and nuclear.

Fossil Fuels are also much easier to distribute than otherfuels, and as long as you have fossil fuels to burn you can do itanywhere, unlike other energy sources which much be placed in veryspecific environFossil Fuels are also much easier to distribute than otherfuels, and as long as you have fossil fuels to burn you can do itanywhere, unlike other energy sources which much be placed in veryspecific environmFuels are also much easier to distribute than otherfuels, and as long as you have fossil fuels to burn you can do itanywhere, unlike other energy sources which much be placed in veryspecific environfossil fuels to burn you can do itanywhere, unlike other energy sources which much be placed in veryspecific environmfuels to burn you can do itanywhere, unlike other energy sources which much be placed in veryspecific environments.

When pressed, Oliver was not able to identify which scientists he was using as a source, La Pressereported, but his staff pointed to an article by Lawrence Solomon, a Canadian writer and infamous climate - change skeptic and denier, and the founder and executive director of Energy Probe, an environmental policy organization and fossil fuel lobbyist group.

Our representatives in Washington are certainly sharply divided in their views on which of these trends we should back and which ones we should try to stop — with a big block only excited about fossil fuels and another wanting to bet pretty much everything on cutting consumption and promoting new energy sources.

short answer A bad idea, since (i) they produce CO2 (partly responsible for the rise in global warming), (ii) there is a limited amount of fossil fuel from which we make valuable materials such as lubricants and plastics, (iii) fossil fuel resources are finite, so burning them means we are consuming a resource we can never replace, and (iv) we can actually build new industries and create many new jobs developing renewable sources of energy instead of burning fossil fuels.

Incidently, they are building windmills and solar farms here as well, presumably to make electricity more expensive and force people to consider other sources of energy, which will come from fossil fuels.

That doesn't happen so much if people reduce fossil - fuel demand over the next few decades via efficiency and substitution of other energy sources, which doesn't happen overnight.

«When you price carbon dioxide emissions, that incentivizes reducing or switching from using fossil fuels to cleaner, more expensive sources of energy, which has economic costs,» Karplus explained.

He said that COP21 — the acronym for the meeting — «represents an important stage in the process of developing a new energy system which depends on a minimal use of fossil fuels, aims at energy efficiency and makes use of energy sources with little or no carbon content.»

With a carbon price, some fossil fuels would continue to be extracted because it would still be cost - effective to do so: the market would decide efficiently which energy sources to use, where energy can be saved through energy efficiency improvements, and which fossil fuels to leave in the ground.

In recent years, there has been great interest in the development of renewable, non-polluting ocean energy which refers to sustainable means of generating electrical power that do not involve burning fossil fuels sources including wind, waves, tides and ocean currents.

The order directs the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to rewrite the Clean Power Plan, which would have closed hundreds of fossil fuel power plants and replaced them with renewable sources of energy such as wind and solar.

In January 2008, the Harvard Law and Policy Review published «Fast, Clean and Cheap,» which argues that the vast price gap between fossil fuels and clean energy sources combines with public resistance to higher energy prices to create a fundamental constraint on the efficacy of carbon pricing to drive emissions reductions everywhere in the world.

In January 2008, the Harvard Law and Policy Review published «Fast, Clean, and Cheap,» which argued that the vast price gap between fossil fuels and clean energy sources combines with public resistance to higher energy prices to create a fundamental constraint on the efficacy of carbon pricing to drive emissions reductions everywhere in the world.

Particularly since we have a climate change bill making its way through Congress that will, at long last, if all goes well, put a price on carbon emissions — thereby giving low - carbon energy sources what they desperately need, which is a fighting chance to compete with fossil fuels on something resembling a level playing field.

I found that these news sources have historical, material connections to American think tanks, Australian conservative political parties and economic interests in the fossil fuel, mining and energy industries — all of which oppose policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

As a result, the source of energy will, in most cases, be based on fossil fuel resources, which many of these nations have and could develop and exploit, possibly with some help from the industrialized nations.

In other words, fossil fuel price increases and volatility will increase energy bills, and measures which reduce consumption and shift production away from fossil fuel sources are a way of hedging against this.