Sentences with phrase «from less coal»

Germany is making more electricity from less coal.

These allow more electricity to be produced from less coal - known as improving the thermal efficiency of the power station.

Not exact matches

Normally I wouldn't consider an electric car since zero emissions from a car when it's powered by coal isn't that much less.

RICHMOND, Va. (AP)-- Dominion Energy Virginia said Tuesday that it plans to build at least eight new natural gas - fired plants during the next 15 years, cementing its shift away from coal, while depending on renewables for less than 10 percent of its energy capacity.

The U.S. generates over 1.7 million megawatt hours from coal - fired power, compared to less than 100,000 megawatt hours in Canada, and U.S. coal generation is expected to remain roughly constant through 2040 absent any new regulations.

Foley said that coal will still likely be the majority power source in 25 years in developing economies like China and India, as they have large domestic coal supplies and less domestic competition from natural gas.

New research from North Carolina State University and the University of Colorado Boulder finds that steep declines in the use of coal for power generation over the past decade were caused largely by less expensive natural...

Newcastle spot prices, essentially the global benchmark price for coal, have fallen from a peak of more than $ 140 a ton in early 2011 to less than $ 70 a ton.

Much of the recent strength has come from a steep rise estimated for «other resource» prices, as sharply higher contract prices for iron ore and coal began to take effect from 1 April, and to a lesser extent, from rising base metals prices.

He said that from the 1970s into the 1990s regulation of smokestacks focused largely on the stench and opacity of the plumes because of concerns about coal - fired plants and steel mills, and less attention was paid to the chemical plants.

In fact, much of the overall decrease in energy consumption can be traced to the shift from coal to gas, because modern gas - fired plants may use up to 46 percent less energy to produce the same amount of electricity.»

Extracting CO2 from traditional coal plants is much less efficient than from gasification plants, where coal is first turned to a gas and reacted with water to form CO2 and hydrogen.

«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.»

Instead, with the imposition of a cap - and - trade program, O'Connor said, people looked at the sources of coal and realized they could obtain it from different parts of the country with lower sulfur, cutting emissions at less cost.

In fact, it would take 3,600 projects of Sleipner's scale — which is the largest such project underway — to reduce current carbon dioxide emissions from coal by less than half, the report says.

«The model is capturing the fact that you have a lot of low - cost opportunities to reduce coal, from heavy - industry direct use as well as the electric power sector, from facilities using less energy - efficient technology or processes.»

Indeed, the Clean Power Plan proposed by the Obama administration to clean up CO2 emissions from power plants relies on capture and storage to allow coal - fired power plants to continue to produce electricity, but with less climate - changing pollution.

Railway tariffs cost about 0.15 yuan per metric ton for each kilometer, less than half the cost of around 0.35 yuan by truck, according to data from the China Coal Transport and Distribution Association.

China's massive jump in coal use - to 3.8 billion metric tons in 2012 from 2.5 billion metric tons in 2006 - drove prices of benchmark Asian thermal coal to average $ 121 a metric ton in 2011, from less than $ 50 five years earlier.

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's less costly to get electricity from wind turbines and solar panels than coal - fired power plants when climate change costs and other health impacts are factored in, according to a new study published in Springer's Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences.

A call for more research, less coal and a carbon price The report offers 10 policy recommendations to curb the morbidity and mortality stemming from climate change.

With more money for development of novel designs and public financial support for construction — perhaps as part of a clean energy portfolio standard that lumps in all low - carbon energy sources, not just renewables or a carbon tax — nuclear could be one of the pillars of a three - pronged approach to cutting greenhouse gas emissions: using less energy to do more (or energy efficiency), low - carbon power, and electric cars (as long as they are charged with electricity from clean sources, not coal burning).

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.

Though the federal government is doubling down on coal, electric power companies are embracing less - polluting natural gas, wind and solar power as the cost of generating electricity from those sources falls.

The new reductions will bring coal use in the city to less than 7 million tons this year, down from around 22 million tons in 2013

Coal production has increased significantly over the past 10 years, rising from less than 500,000 tons in 1994 to over 2,500,000 tons in 2004.

Less commonly, countries spoke of reducing the use of inefficient coal - fired power plants, lowering methane emissions from oil and gas production, reforming fossil fuel subsidies, and carbon pricing, the report says.

The World Energy Outlook 2016, released last week, is just one among an increasing line of studies showing how nations need to slow and, ultimately, phase out investment in new fossil fuel supply infrastructure — from oil fields and pipelines to coal mines — if they are serious about keeping warming to 2C or less.

In Ohio, the state has granted permits to mine for coal at new and existing sites ranging from less than 20 acres to more than 350.

Less understood — and more difficult to measure — is the influence of aerosol particles from human sources, particularly the use of coal and other fossil fuels.

Supporters admit that rates will rise, but they believe rates will actually rise less if coal - fired electricity is eliminated from Oregon's energy mix.

The investigators found that — pound for pound — particles from coal burning contribute about five times more to the risk of death from heart disease than other air pollution particles of the same size — less than one ten - thousandth of an inch in diameter (known as PM 2.5).

· Electricity generated from renewable sources causes 70 - 90 per cent less pollution harmful to ecosystems and human health than coal power.

Spending on school operations — not including school construction or debt payments — ranges from less than $ 8,700 per student in a coal country district, one of the state's lowest - achieving, to more than $ 26,600 in a tony Philadelphia suburb.

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.

Hydro generation during August was short by around 17 per cent due to less inflow of water, leading to increase in generation from coal - based stations, he said.

Sooty air from coal burning triggered the initial melting of the mountain glaciers in the European Alps in the second half of the 19th Century when it caused the snow to turn grey and so reflect less sunlight back into space, scientists said.

AR: The pressing urgent problem is figuring out a way to engage people on a multigenerational energy quest to move away from a here - and - now fuel (mainly coal) that is cheap and abundant for the sake of a less risky climate future.

This peer - reviewed study by a pair of researchers at Rice University in Houston shows that while fracking - produced water shouldn't be allowed near drinking water, it's less toxic than similar waste from coal - bed methane mining.

The increasing proliferation of these tools has the potential to raise awareness among environmentally - minded people and perhaps bring pressure to bear upon utilities to use more renewable energy sources (or at least less coal mined from the tops of mountains!)

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.

Researchers at Stanford University who closely track China's power sector, coal use, and carbon dioxide emissions have done an initial rough projection and foresee China possibly emitting somewhere between 1.9 and 2.6 billion tons less carbon dioxide from 2008 to 2010 than it would have under «business as usual» if current bearish trends for the global economy hold up.

Presently a electric car plugged into the grid is only around 40 % efficient overall due to the generation of grid electricity from coal, nuclear and gas mainly (here in the UK) and that makes them a lot less efficient than you say.

Demonstrating that the overall environmental damage is less than that from coal does not imply that gas production and use is cost - free, and the sooner we reduce our dependence on fossil fuel sources of energy of all kinds the better.

Because switching from coal to cleaner and more affordable energy would result in less coal mined, less coal burned, and less carbon pollution emitted, BLM's decisions do have a climate impact — and a big one at that.

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.)?

And if the climate movement can keep pressuring the the government, banks and universities to invest in the future and divest from fossil fuels, it seems inevitable that we'll be burning less coal in the coming years, whether President Obama has officially waged a War on Coal or coal in the coming years, whether President Obama has officially waged a War on Coal or Coal or not.

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?

«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,»