Sentences with phrase «fuel infrastructure because»

There should be no new fossil fuel infrastructure because greenhouse gases are heating up the atmosphere, causing polar ice to melt and violent, unpredictable weather events which cost us more in the long run.

Not exact matches

Supporting a rail system powered by hydrogen fuel cells, for example, would require an entirely new infrastructure because hydrogen, being a small molecule, would leak through existing pipelines.

Many communities would be better off investing in electric vehicles that run on batteries instead of hydrogen fuel cells, in part because the hydrogen infrastructure provides few additional energy benefits for the community besides clean transportation.

Because lipids from Y. lipolytica have chemical properties similar to those of diesel fuel, they can be readily used as biodiesel using current vehicles and existing infrastructure at gas stations.

The U.S. is about to hit the «blending wall,» the saturation point for ethanol use, because it does not have the infrastructure to meet the federal mandate for renewable - fuels use with ethanol.

(Prices in have since gone up because of a hike from 14 cents to 37 cents a gallon in NJ state fuel taxes, with the money earmarked to improve the Garden State's terrible transportation infrastructure.)

Personally, I would believe that a gaseous fuel infrastructure should be a priority because it increases transportation fuel options without demanding one engine technology be scraped in favor of another.

Andersen: In your book, you argue that it would be impossible to transition away from fossil fuels quickly, because our current global - energy infrastructure simply can't be replaced within a single generation.

And a lack of coastal infrastructure, such as deepwater ports, means that spills of the heavy fuel oil that powers most vessels could wreak havoc on both ecosystems and reputations, because clean - up missions would have to set out from much farther away and would take much longer to be effective.

We're looking to build on this victory, and show that if it's wrong to build Keystone XL because of its impact on our climate, it's wrong to build any new fossil fuel infrastructure, period.

Such a hybrid infrastructure would lower the use of carbon fuels for the generation of electricity, because renewable energy can replace them if there is sufficient sun or wind available.

Activists are also fighting Rover and other fossil fuel infrastructure projects on climate change grounds because the new installations can have a lifespan of 50 years or more, locking in new carbon emissions over the long term.

Lower carbon sustainable biofuels will likely also be a necessity for internal combustion engines because it could take decades to build out new, safe, and accessible infrastructure for fueling electric or hydrogen - powered zero - carbon vehicles.

This perception has spread because the majority of compressed natural gas vehicles sold to date have been relegated to fleets, such as buses and delivery vehicles, where municipal governments and large corporations can take advantage of central fueling stations to reduce infrastructure costs.

Here's how Diane Leopold, president of the giant fracking company Dominion Energy, put it at a conference earlier this year: «It may be the most challenging» period in fossil fuel history, she said, because of «an increase in high - intensity opposition» to infrastructure projects that is becoming steadily «louder, better - funded, and more sophisticated.»

This is because fossil fuel prices have been steadily rising but after the infrastructure is built prices would begin to fall for renewable energy due to the fact that raw materials are free.

Because wind energy arrays do not require continual fuel inputs, upfront expenditures for turbines, foundations, and electrical infrastructure constitute nearly 75 % of total project costs (WindEurope 2016).

Pope and Shah point out that for the developing world, the price difference is even greater, because new distributed renewable resources can reduce the need for building the transmission infrastructure that would be required with centralized fossil fuel generation.

For another, it increases mitigation costs: failing to act now makes it more difficult to change because it allows additional investment in fossil fuel based infrastructure in developed and especially less developed countries.

But cutting emissions from transportation poses unique challenges, because cars and trucks are owned by individuals with diverse needs, who are constrained by existing infrastructure and limited fuel options.

For example, in the IEA report that Chevron cites frequently, stranded assets are «capital investment in fossil - fuel infrastructure that ends up failing to be recovered over the operating lifetime of the asset because of reduced demand or lower prices resulting from climate policy» [3].

It has the infrastructure we need to support the people who will no longer live in Phoenix because of the heat and the cost of fuel.

Biofuels can quickly become a staple of a low - carbon fuel diet because they integrate well with the existing fuel distribution infrastructure and offer potentially abundant domestic supplies with significant opportunities for growth, the report says.

However, his landmark report was, in part, misunderstood, because while everyone focused on the market failure of not putting a price on carbon it also identifed five other market failures that fuel the climate crisis: a failure of R&D investment; a failure of capital infrastructure investment; a failure to build networks where benefits are shared; a failure to account for co-benefits; and a failure of information distribution

Pay attention, because this next one has some serious implications for energy and transportation policy, and infrastructure: According to research just published in the online edition of Science, rather than converting energy crops to liquid fuel for use in an internal combustion engine, it is far more efficient to convert them to electricity to power vehicles.

Stopping the Keystone XL pipeline is important not just because it will help stop future leaks that, judging from the track record of TransCanada's first pipeline, Keystone 1, as highlighted above, will be much larger than the spills we've seen from rail transport, but it also prevents a massive piece of essentially permanent fossil fuel infrastructure from being established that will no doubt push global warming past the point of no return, as the «terrifying math of global warming» makes startlingly clear.

But isn't climate change a much more difficult problem to solve because it ultimately involves transforming our energy infrastructure away from fossil fuels?