Targeted
fuel reduction treatments can help reduce risk to residential communities and restore landscapes affected by past fire suppression, but can not overcome the increasing trend in acreage burned.
Not exact matches
National
Fuel Gas CEO Ronald J. Tanski, stung by the rejection of a major pipeline expansion project and a steep
reduction in the size of a utility rate increase request over the past month, told analysts that the Amherst - based energy company is «getting lousy regulatory
treatment in New York State.»
* Horsepower and torque expected to top previous model (testing is ongoing — check media.gm.com for updates) * NOx emissions reduced at least 63 percent over 2010 models * Quieter operation * High - pressure (30,000 psi / 2, 000 bar) Piezo - actuated
fuel system for greater
fuel efficiency, improved performance and reduced emissions * Exhaust brake system that enables controlled vehicle slowdown on downhill grades without actuating the brakes * Selective catalytic
reduction after -
treatment system using diesel exhaust fluid (DEF) injection to provide the best overall diesel characteristics and performance — with a range of about 5,000 miles (8,000 km) between DEF refills * Combustion and after -
treatment have been optimized to provide about 700 miles (1,125 km) between diesel particulate filter regenerations — a 75 - percent improvement over the previous system and significant contributor to improved
fuel efficiency, as the regeneration process requires additional
fuel * B20 biodiesel capability for an alternative
fueling option * Internal revisions that improve durability
In addition to an integrated intake system with mirror - image porting for optimized engine breathing; low - inertia turbocharger; high - pressure
fuel injection system that is more responsive, quieter and offers more precise
fuel delivery; and standard selective catalytic
reduction emissions after -
treatment that contributes to improved NOx
reduction, the 2.0 - liter EcoBlue features multiple innovations that reduce friction, including:
In order of
reduction, they call for controlling nitrogen oxide emissions from the burning of fossil
fuels using «maximum feasible
reductions,» which could reduce reactive nitrogen emissions by 55 billion pounds of a year; increasing the efficiency of fertilizing crops (33 billion pounds a year); improved animal management policies (33 billion pounds); and ensuring that at least half the world's urban population has sewage
treatment (11 billion pounds).
For example, a country may have an ambitious emission
reduction target but its legal framework may continue to give preferential
treatment to grid - based large - scale utility energy generation, or subsidies for fossil
fuels.
The four key differences are: 1) unlike the Energy Policy Conservation Act (EPCA), the CAA [Clean Air Act] allows for the crediting of direct emission
reductions and indirect
fuel economy benefits from improved air conditioners, allowing for greater compliance flexibility and lower costs; 2) EPCA allows Flexible Fuel Vehicle (FFV) credits through model year 2019, whereas the EPA standard requires demonstration of actual use of a low carbon fuel after model year 2015; 3) EPCA allows for the payment of fines in lieu of compliance but the CAA does not; and 4) treatment of intra firm trading of compliance credits between cars and light trucks categorie
fuel economy benefits from improved air conditioners, allowing for greater compliance flexibility and lower costs; 2) EPCA allows Flexible
Fuel Vehicle (FFV) credits through model year 2019, whereas the EPA standard requires demonstration of actual use of a low carbon fuel after model year 2015; 3) EPCA allows for the payment of fines in lieu of compliance but the CAA does not; and 4) treatment of intra firm trading of compliance credits between cars and light trucks categorie
Fuel Vehicle (FFV) credits through model year 2019, whereas the EPA standard requires demonstration of actual use of a low carbon
fuel after model year 2015; 3) EPCA allows for the payment of fines in lieu of compliance but the CAA does not; and 4) treatment of intra firm trading of compliance credits between cars and light trucks categorie
fuel after model year 2015; 3) EPCA allows for the payment of fines in lieu of compliance but the CAA does not; and 4)
treatment of intra firm trading of compliance credits between cars and light trucks categories.50
One of CSPW's major criticisms of the QER under President Obama was its
treatment of natural gas as a «bridge
fuel» to a renewable energy future; since the infrastructure used to extract, process, and transport natural gas to market is essentially the same as that for oil and petroleum products, continued reliance on natural gas only delays the transition to clean, renewable energy and has only marginal CO2 -
reduction benefits in the near term.
Investigated buses represented different technologies in terms of engines, exhaust after -
treatment systems (e.g., diesel particulate filter, selective catalytic
reduction, and three - way catalyst) and
fuels (diesel, diesel - electric (hybrid), ethanol, and compressed natural gas (CNG)-RRB-.