Sentences with phrase «fuel infrastructure if»

Research has shown that we can not build new fossil fuel infrastructure if we are to meet the commitments made in Paris *.

Not exact matches

If exchanges like Poloniex have helped build the infrastructure for today's cryptocurrency mania, their relative secrecy and lack of accountability to customers and regulators have helped fuel the backlash to that mania, especially outside the U.S.

If we know we need to set out on a path towards fossil fuel wind - down, then now is not the time to be investing in new infrastructure that aims towards ramp - up.

And if that's the case it makes little economic or ecological sense to spend billions of dollars building new fossil fuel infrastructure and increasing capacity, particularly when that infrastructure has a working life span and expected financial return that well exceeds thirty years.

«If elected, I pledge to immediately direct DEC to half this and all other fossil fuel infrastructure projects as a threat to public health and safety.

«Essentially, if we were to use the hydrocarbon oils from this alga to be a renewable fuel source, there would be no need to change any kind of infrastructure for making the fuel.

But there are a number of complexities related to the viability of a new fuel, Fretheim added, such as the vehicle payback period, the need for new infrastructure, overcoming maintenance issues and sourcing enough of an alternative fuel to test it and to fully adopt it if it works.

The carmaker realized that if its vision of battery - powered electric vehicles gaining mass appeal in tandem with fuel cell electrics was to come true, it needed to so something about the lack of hydrogen infrastructure.

Both Ash and Roney pointed out the need for full cost accounting for natural gas in order to figure out if it is cost - effective: The industry must measure the price of mining, shipping and infrastructure for the fuel, as well as the value of natural gas's environmental and health consequences.»

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.

My own feel for this is that if we do not achieve global agreement and real action on deep cuts in emissions over the next 10 years or so we will get locked into an inappropriate fossil fuel infrastructure until at least mid-century, that will prevent us from capturing CO2 effectively.

Ignoring the billions (if not trillions) of dollars needed to create a station infrastructure, consider hydrogen production complexity and cost, a process that still relies entirely on fossil fuels.

Honda's Clarity Fuel Cell will go on sale in California (one of, if not the only state with any semblance of a hydrogen infrastructure) later in 2016.

If the lamps here are pulled and compressed from the ash of a famously sinking city's energy infrastructure, the walls on which they are hung are similarly sandwiches of solid fuel.

This step demonstrated that the overhead crane and supporting infrastructure could handle the loads — and if there was a surprise, its consequences would be minimized with the «test» using unirradiated fuel.

As always, energy efficiency improvements such as energy efficient lighting, adding insulation, and sealing leaks should be undertaken first.First Step: Replace Fossil Fuel Equipment Replacing building infrastructure may take some time, especially if you wait until the equipment needs replacing.

If we define «Adaptation to climate change» as ending the use of fossil fuels and quickly building renewable energy infrastructure, then yes, there is opposition — from established fossil fuel interests, mostly.

If hydrogen fuel can be done cheaper, let it compete, but we can't wait for replacement of the transportation infrastructure.

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.

If the US builds new fossil fuel infrastructure, it may be harder for it to persuade other countries to decarbonise their energy systems.

If successful, this initiative could augment the world's transportation fuel supply with existing infrastructure while reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The basic concept is viable if a convincing economic argument can be presented to the communities of this region, the current users of fossil fuel, and upon identifying the «parties» that will participate in creation of the necessary infrastructure.

Depending on their level of resilience, low - tech networks can remain in operation when the supply of fossil fuels is interrupted, when the electricity infrastructure deteriorates, when the economy grinds to a halt, or if other calamities should hit.

World headed for irreversible climate change in five years, IEA warns If fossil fuel infrastructure is not rapidly changed, the world will «lose for ever» the chance to avoid dangerous climate change The world is likely to build so many fossil - fuelled power stations, energy - guzzling factories and inefficient buildings in the next five years that it will become impossible to hold global warming to safe levels, and the last chance of combating dangerous climate change will be «lost for ever», according to the most thorough analysis yet of world energy infrastructure.

But if existing combustion power plants could be adapted to use metal powder instead of coal or other fossil fuels, then much of the existing power generating infrastructure could be used, and power generation could continue to be in the same places it is now, using the same grid as is currently supplying electricity.

If the methane starts boiling out tomorrow, instead of just hypothetically doing it — we need to stop burning fossil fuels, and invest not in more gas infrastructure but in renewables.

If the methane stays where it is for a couple hundred more years — we still need to stop burning fossil fuels immediately as fast as we can, and invest not in more gas infrastructure but in renewables.

I would sum the idea up this way: If we need fossil fuels to be left in the ground, we need to start just saying no to infrastructure that helps it removal.

But it won't even be possible if we don't stop making long - term investments in fossil fuel infrastructure now.

It makes no sense to spend money on green infrastructure — or a bailout of Detroit aimed at stimulating production of more fuel - efficient cars — if it is not combined with a tax on carbon that would actually change consumer buying behavior.

If America is going to make its rail infrastructure work again and displace fuel - inefficient transport trucks, would this bridge have been needed?

But if existing zero - carbon technologies can not affordably be scaled up to meet current and projected global energy needs, how likely is it that technologies either not yet invented or as yet prohibitively expensive can affordably replace the world's fossil - fuel infrastructure?