Sentences with phrase «fueled power plants do»

Many natural gas - fueled power plants do not have a backup fuel source (typically oil) on site.

Geothermal plants emit only a tiny fraction of the emissions that fossil fuel powered plants do, and there is a seemingly endless amount of heat near the Earth's surface that remains untapped for power production.

Question: how many fossil fuel power plants do you think are running on standby at any time in Germany?

Not exact matches

But Sustainable, which is working on a system that turns animal or plant waste into fuel to power equipment, is doing all its construction and testing at space its leasing from a power tool company in Saugerties.

As a result of the discussions, a consensus emerged that Ghana has faced power challenges for the past several years due to the fact that thermal power plants did not have enough fuel resources to fire power generation plants.

After all, once operating, nuclear power plants burn nothing and therefore emit no carbon dioxide as fossil fuel — burning power plants do.

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.

The rule would guarantee a profit to any power plant with 90 days of fuel stored on - site in the name of grid resiliency — but experts say it will do nothing for resiliency and increase costs for consumers.

Because there is no combustion, fuel cells run extremely cleanly: Their emissions are just water and carbon dioxide, and they produce less than half as much CO2 per kilowatt - hour as do traditional power plants.

Does that mean we'll be turning the HEU in our warheads into fuel for nuclear power plants too?

The Stanford scientists suggested roofs covered in photovoltaic panels would do a better job, by producing electricity that then obviates the need for more fossil fuel — burning power plants.

Response: SMR - 160 is a small modular pressurized water nuclear reactor power plant that does not rely on any pumps or motors to remove heat from the nuclear fuel, for all normal and accident scenarios.

The new Sedona comes with a direct injection 3.3 - liter V - 6 engine, a very efficient power plant that, however, does not leap ahead of the pack in fuel economy.

«You don't buy fuel every day for a nuclear power plant.

Our seas will need to have tens of thousands to these wind turbines deployed at several per week to do the job in time and only shallow offshore is viable at the present time and that is inline with existing baseload fossil fuel coal and gas fired power plants along with existing nuclear ones to.

India cancelled an Enron power plant when they didn't use coal, and instead produced an expensive natural gas plant with fuel from Africa.

There is no need for these societies to repeat the disaster of the western world's 19th century fossil - fueled industrial revolution, nor is there any possibility of them doing so, given that they can afford neither the cost of the fossil fuels nor the cost of building electric grids to distribute power from large, centralized power plants.

Similarly, when a fossil fuel burning power plant dumps carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, its owners don't pay for the resulting climate disruption.

Nevermind that as currently operated, wind farms do virtually nothing to reduce the need for fossil fuel power plants.

However, while displacing all fossil fuel power plants with solar and wind farms is necessary in curbing the flow of additional greenhouse gases into our atmosphere, it does nothing to capture the prevailing stock of greenhouse gases that has already accumulated.

Understanding the significance of this last fact relies on the appreciation that displacing all fossil fuel power plants with solar and wind farms, while necessary in curbing the flow of additional greenhouse gases into our atmosphere, does nothing to capture the prevailing stock of greenhouse gases accumulated from 150 years of industrialization and that will remain in the atmosphere for upwards of a hundred or more years to come.

As long as the focus is «public fear about residing near nuclear power plants» and doesn't venture into the impacts of climate science denial and it's excessive allaying of public fears about excessive fossil fuel burning — it won't address the single most significant political impediment to nuclear.

And since most renewables don't require water for cooling, they dramatically reduce the water requirements for power production compared to fossil - fueled power plants.

He notes they don't compete much with oil, used mostly as a transportation fuel, but they do compete with natural gas, often used to power plants that produce electricity.

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

That's because a working electricity system fueled mostly by wind turbines requires additional massive costs that a fossil fuel system does not: huge excess capacity (perhaps 300 - 400 %) to deal with conditions of light wind; gigantic batteries to store power for conditions of no wind at all, which can persist for days; extra transmission lines to bring electricity from windier areas to the rest of the country; and finally, an entire array of fossil fuel back - up plants for those occasions when the wind doesn't blow for a week and the batteries are dead.

I would not like a nuclear power plant of any size on my property as I wouldn't know what to do with the exhausted fuel rods.)

Neilio, I'm with you on this.I just love the way you stand up to that guy's strange arguments.I too am extremely concerned at the way we are all being made to follow this crazy «science», to the detriment of most normal Humans» lives.I'm in England.We are living on a huge mass of fossil fuel, (coal, oil and now gas from Fracking), and we're being told that we must not use it to keep warm.Coal - fired power plants are being shut down.Useless windfarms are swamping our country.Nuclear stations are planned when Germany has banned them in favour of Coal.China and India are building and using more coal stations than we ever did.

Just about nothing else would cost so much and do so little, so the bunnies have asked Eli why Roger and the Breakers are doubling down CO2 capture at the source (fossil fuel power plants, cement kilns) imposes a cost on the fossil fuel industry.

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

Today, amid an anemic economy and joblessness far worse than official government figures admit, President Obama balks at approving the Keystone XL pipeline, cancels leasing and drilling on federal lands, tells our budget - sequestered military to buy $ 26 to $ 67 - per - gallon ship and jet fuel, punishes refineries for not buying cellulosic ethanol that doesn't exist, and happily lets EPA shut down coal - fired power plants and kill countless thousands of mining, utility and other jobs.

That is what they do in other countries where we prevent them from having fossil fuel power plants.

Despite the capacity increase of fossil fuel power plants in this example, did the CO2 emissions increase or not?

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.

And fossil fuel plants used for supplemental or backup power do NOT «keep spinning in the background» burning fossil fuels.

Wind turbines don't REPLACE fossil fuel power plants.

«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.»

But just because it's fossil fuel consumers like power plants and drivers who ultimately burn the coal, oil and gas that emit greenhouse gases, that doesn't let the producers off the hook, she added.

A common myth is that because some types of renewable energy do not provide baseload power, they require an equivalent amount of backup power provided by fossil fuel plants.

Centralized coal - fired power plants are run on cheap coal and they release less CO2 per car mile than do most petroleum fueled cars considering the efficiency, shipping and refining losses.

Previously, solar power plants had depended on back up energy plants powered by carbon emitting fuels because a solar system's peak generation hours do not coincide with the utility's peak load hours after 5 p.m. Low sunlight meant low energy generation, and this challenge scaled back the environmental benefits of solar plants.

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.

Though the capital costs of ZCA2020 are much higher than BAU, more money is saved because solar power plants do not need a constant supply of coal and gas for fuel.

Xcel was also caught testifying just three days later that, when concerning its nuclear power plant, non-fossil generation (like solar...) did provide «a valuable hedge against potential increases in fossil fuel costs» which have been «extremely volatile.»

Hundreds of U.S. coal plants have been shuttered in recent years largely because of a monumental nation - wide shift to natural gas power generation, a cleaner fuel that emits much less CO2 upon combustion than does coal.

Earth scientist Bill Chameides, dean of Duke's Nicholas School of the Environment and a former chief scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund, urges the administration to use its Clean Air Act authority to promulgate carbon regulations for existing power plants like it has for new ones: «Doing that will force fuel switching from coal to natural gas.»

I did a lot of math on this and honestly, the ONLY way I could find to reasonably integrate large amounts of wind / solar... is to convert most of it into hydrogen, storing WEEKS WORTH in vast, metal lined, bored tunnels (or just huge arrays of tanks) near conventional gas fired turbine power plants... and JUST BURN IT in the power plant as fuel to buffer out the remainder of the wind / solar that's actually providing electricity.

Then again, how long does it take a fossil - fueled or nuclear power plant to pay - back or to be produced?

It might have been better to keep Germany's existing nuclear power plants operational and do a thorough safety review so that they can be used until a transition to renewables can be done directly (without having to build a large amount of new fossil fuel plants).