Sentences with phrase «generated than burning coal»

Not exact matches

Exxon Mobil also touted its status as the United States» No. 1 natural gas producer, noting that gas emits significantly less CO2 than coal when burned to generate electricity.

Even the oil sands ultimate consumption in a gasoline, diesel or jet engine only results in 500 kilograms of CO2 - equivalent per barrel of refined petroleum products, meaning total oil sands emissions from well to wheel are considerably lower than those of this nation's more than 500 power plants burning coal to generate electricity.

Natural gas, which is mainly methane, may generate less carbon dioxide than oil and coal when burned, but as recent research has found, there's more to greenhouse gas emissions than just combustion.

Although natural gas generates less greenhouse gas than coal when burned, when its total life - cycle emissions associated with extraction and distribution are factored in, it does not seem much cleaner than coal

Secondly, not only is that coal becoming more costly to mine, we have to burn more of it in order to generate an equal amount of electricity this year than we did last year.

â $ œSecondly, not only is that coal becoming more costly to mine, we have to burn more of it in order to generate an equal amount of electricity this year than we did last year.

I was astonished to learn that the United States burns more than a billion tons of coal a year, mostly to generate electricity.

Even though the gas system is almost certainly leakier than previously thought, generating electricity by burning gas rather than coal still reduces the total greenhouse effect over 100 years, the new analysis shows.

The main difference with this was that it was often (especially in Australia) generated by burning another fossil fuel: coal rather than oil.

The burden of any plan to regulate carbon dioxide emissions would have fallen most heavily on coal - burning power plants, which still account for more than 50 percent of the electricity generated in the United States.

Meanwhile, scientists have determined that biomass burning generates more CO2 emissions per kWh than burning coal does, and the projected rapid growth in biofuel use will only serve to «increase atmospheric CO2 for at least a century».

«[A] n electric car running on power generated by dirty coal or gas actually creates more emissions than a car that burns petrol,» Dr. Dénes Csala, an engineer at Lancaster University, wrote in The Conversation.

The researchers found that wood pellets burned in European and UK power plants, such as the Drax facility in North Yorkshire — which has transitioned some of its coal power generation capacity to wood pellets with the support of UK government subsidies — actually emit more CO2 per kilowatt hour than that generated by coal.

The rise of shale gas has had an environmental benefit as well — greatly reduced carbon dioxide emissions, because generating electricity by burning natural gas emits less than half as much carbon dioxide as burning coal.

The report also found that burning natural gas generated far less damage than coal, although still significant: a sample of 498 natural gas fueled plants (71 percent of gas - generated electricity) produced $ 740 million in total nonclimate damages in 2005.

In particular, she evaluates whether generating energy via the burning of wood pellets, or biomass, puts less carbon into the atmosphere than burning coal.

Which makes me a bit torn on this one: While biomass electric generation is certainly a good thing, and anything that gets us (the collective human we) away from burning coal is undeniably positive environmentally, it seems to me that there is a better solution than processing wood pellets in Florida and shipping them to the EU to generate power... Even if it appears from Green Circle's estimate of net energy gain comes out positive.

The study, which was published in the prestigious journal the American Economic Review, caused quite a stir in green circles, and for good reason — the authors found that mining and burning coal actually imposes more costs on the economy than the value it creates by generating power.

Having said that, I think we should go beyond market mechanisms, and institute an immediate, outright ban on the construction of any new coal - fired power plants and any new coal mines, and also announce a deadline within no more than ten years at which time the burning of coal to generate electricity will be illegal and all coal - fired power plants, and coal mines, will be shut down.

However, burning trees releases carbon into the atmosphere immediately — more per unit of electricity generated than coal — and any new trees planted won't reach maturity and absorb the same amount of carbon for decades, if ever.

«Coal is more polluting than gasoline, and nearly 60 percent of U.S. electricity is generated by burning coal.&raCoal is more polluting than gasoline, and nearly 60 percent of U.S. electricity is generated by burning coal.&racoal.»

We make solar energy available to homeowners, businesses, schools, and government organizations at a lower cost than they pay for energy generated by burning fossil fuels like coal, oil and natural gas.