Sentences with phrase «fuel power plants if»

So what good are fossil fuel power plants if they don't lead to greater grid access?

Not exact matches

The fuel for a power plant can be used for a bomb if it's enriched to a much higher level.

What in effect, we would be doing is displacing 300 oil - fired power plants and another 300 coal - fired power plants; so the land required for 600 fossil fuel power plants — if you are going to think that way, if you consider the whole system, which includes mining coal, which includes drilling for oil, the refining of all that, it's not just the power plant — that the land tradeoff actually gets to be fairly close, you know, the solar power plant is the footprint of the solar power and that's it.

Actually if you calculate, you think about those 600 fossil fuel power plants, and if you calculate how much money is spent to purchase the fuel, that's the big thing that people don't really think about.

If the fuel rods are no longer being cooled — as has happened at all three reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi power plant operating at the time of the earthquake — then the zirconium cladding will swell and crack, releasing the uranium fuel pellets and fission byproducts, such as radioactive cesium and iodine, among others.

Weaning US power plants off the dirtiest fuel will count for little if Wyoming and Montana's huge reserves are shipped to Asia

If the approach is successful, it could be considered for other sites where uranium was processed for nuclear arsenals or power plant fuel.

OAK RIDGE, Tenn — The oceans hold more than four billion tons of uranium — enough to meet global energy needs for the next 10,000 years if only we could capture the element from seawater to fuel nuclear power plants.

By 2030, the U.S. would see carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants using fossil fuels fall by 30 percent below 2005 levels if the Clean Power Plan, announced on June 2, is finalized in power plants using fossil fuels fall by 30 percent below 2005 levels if the Clean Power Plan, announced on June 2, is finalized in Power Plan, announced on June 2, is finalized in 2015.

The long - term goal is to reduce the world's reliance on energy generate from fossil fuels while creating regional networks of home batteries that could be controlled as if they were a power plant.

Just in the U.S., if waste heat recovery devices were used at every oil, gas and manufacturing plant, 11.4 million homes could be powered by the electricity produced and it would have the bonus benefit of offsetting the need for the same amount of energy to be produced using fossil fuels.

They should include people in gas country, where federal studies hopefully will soon clarify ways to responsibly expand extraction of a vital fuel (if you care even remotely about moving away from oil or limiting emissions from coal - burning power plants).

If we shut down Indian Point and other nuclear power plants, we will become even more dependent — at least for the foreseeable future — on fossil fuels, which, in addition to spewing out toxic pollutants, also contribute to global warming.

If this supply were cut off, prices would rise, leading power plants to switch to other, cheaper fuels.

In the long run, according to the report, the steady demand for electricity is likely to result in investments in much cleaner power plants, even if coal remains the dominant fuel for our electricity production.

And if you really want to complicate things, check out this study, which estimates that fossil - fuel powered plants kill 24 million birds a year.

If fossil fuels are used for mining and refining uranium ore, or if fossil fuels are used when constructing the nuclear power plant, then the emissions from burning those fuels could be associated with the electricity that nuclear power plants generate.&raquIf fossil fuels are used for mining and refining uranium ore, or if fossil fuels are used when constructing the nuclear power plant, then the emissions from burning those fuels could be associated with the electricity that nuclear power plants generate.&raquif fossil fuels are used when constructing the nuclear power plant, then the emissions from burning those fuels could be associated with the electricity that nuclear power plants generate.»

«If a pipeline would be compromised, does a (power plant) have sufficient backup, or (have) multiple ways to get fuel?»

If barriers to nuclear persist, the energy gap will likely be plugged by more fossil - fuel power plants, which would render the cleanliness of China's wind farms academic.

With costs dropping by 10 % per year, if solar power's not cheaper now, it will be long before a new fossil fuel power plant is paid off.»

Increased fuel consumption to clean power plant effluent will increase CO2 production if net output is maintained.

In order to get the bioreactors efficient enough to produce 10,000 — 20,000 gallons of fuel per acre per year they need CO2 at many times atmospheric concentration which is a piece of cake if you capture it from power plant or other industrial exhaust gases but not so easy getting it out of the air.

If the nuclear power plant lifetimes were extended as briefly planned in 2010, the retiring fossil fuel plants could more easily be replaced by renewable energy sources, followed by a replacement of the nuclear plants with renewables as well.

If she has her way, and utilities need to shut down their coal - fueled power plants and replace them with renewable facilities, we know the costs will be considerably higher — which some believe to be a worthwhile trade - off — but, what will that really look like?

EPA's Clean Power Plan assumes shutting down U.S. coal - fired power plants will stop climate change, even if China, India, and other countries build thousands of new coal - fueled generators over the next 20 yPower Plan assumes shutting down U.S. coal - fired power plants will stop climate change, even if China, India, and other countries build thousands of new coal - fueled generators over the next 20 ypower plants will stop climate change, even if China, India, and other countries build thousands of new coal - fueled generators over the next 20 years.

Yet even if the high price of energy from fossil fuels and power plants combines with regional climate initiatives to slow the current rate of growth somewhat, we will probably hit 11 gigatonnes of carbon emissions per year by 2020.

Actually, if you properly do the math - and count if you count the whole nuclear fuel cycle, not just the power plant, not just the core of the reactor, but the occlusion zone, the uranium mining and so on, it turns out that wind power uses hundreds or thousands of times less land per kilowatt hour, then nuclear does.

Tony, If Switzerland has to import uranium to make fuel for nuclear power plants, the only way to complete self - reliance is renewables.

If electricity generated in fossil fuel power plants is really that beneficial to an economy it should be easy to finance those projects, right?

«If the world is going to have a lot more nuclear power plants,» says Allison, «you are going to have to have some arrangement for supplying fuel credibly and for taking it away that doesn't require everybody getting into the business [of making it] themselves.»

In addition to regulating fuel economy, EPA is applying Clean Air Act permitting requirements to large stationary sources of greenhouse gases: power plants, refineries, steel mills, pulp and paper factories, and cement production facilities.63 EPA will soon establish greenhouse gas New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for coal - fired power plants and petroleum refineries.64 If these go unchallenged, it is likely that EPA will develop greenhouse gas performance standards for numerous other industrial source categories.

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.

In flat contradiction of their stated views that climate change represents an imminent cata - strophic threat, anti-nuclear environmentalists from Germany to Illinois to California bless the burning of fossil fuels if it means they can force the closure of a nuclear power plant.

It was announced that in September 2010 PGE teamed with researchers from Washington and Oregon to study how a fast - growing grass known as Arundo Donax could serve as fuel for the utility's controversial coal - fired power plant in Boardman, if the plant ended up being converted to biomass.

If New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo succeeds in his effort to close Indian Point nuclear power plant, carbon emissions will spike and the state will become more dependent on fossil fuels than it has been since 2000, a new Environmental Progress (EP) analysis finds.

If New York loses its nuclear power plants they will be replaced by fossil fuels, and greenhouse emissions from the state's power sector would skyrocket roughly 50 percent.

There can be no long - term CO2 emissions reduction benefit to installing more and more wind power if the long - term net effect of doing so leads to the requisite construction of more fossil fuel energy plants.

Atmospheric CO2 is likely to increase to around 640 ppmv *, assuming — There will be no global Kyoto type climate initiatives — Human CO2 emissions increase with human population — Global per capita human fossil fuel use increases by 30 % by 2100 (it increased by 20 % from 1970 to today)-- Population growth is estimated to slow down sharply, with population reaching 10.5 billion by 2100 (* Note that this could be lower by around 60 ppmv if there is a concerted switch to nuclear power instead of coal for new power plants)

Gas can make early gains, but we really need to maintain focus on developing cheap, small, nuclear power plants for the whole world if we want to replace fossil fuels globally.

If implemented, existing power plants would incur transitional compliance costs in the form of fuel and capital expenses from shifting to natural gas - fired generation and expanding renewable energy capacity.

For example, the global average effect of any change in albedo from using solar power would be rather small in comparison to mitigation of climate change if that solar power is used (to displace fossil fuels) for a sufficient time period (example: if a 10 % efficient PV panel with zero albedo (reflectivity for solar (SW) radiation) covered ground with an albedo of 25 — 30 %, the ratio of total increased heating to electricity generation would be similar to that of many fuel - combusting or fission - powered power plants (setting aside inverter and grid efficiency, etc., but still it would be similar).

So I was wondering if this can be avoided with the Th - type power plant, or perhaps more generally, the concept of fuel used in a liquid state as suggested in the link from the Brave New Climate site (I think it's under Blogroll — just look for Thorium)-- which allows easier processing of fuel and removal of some isotopes.

In addition to being used to simply produce cyclic carbonates, North believes it could also be retrofitted on coal - fired plants: «If our catalyst could be employed at the source of high - concentration CO2 production, for example in the exhaust stream of a fossil - fuel power station, we could take out the carbon dioxide, turn it into a commercially - valuable product and at the same time eliminate the need to store waste CO2.»

But gas is a notoriously volatile commodity, and in the future, the cost of fossil fuel - based power could rise if the Obama administration's rules to curb power plant emissions take effect.

Stephen Brown, vice president for government affairs for Tesoro Corp., said if Obama delivers on his promise to regulate power plants, «the administration's war on fossil fuels is now fully joined.