Sentences with phrase «know about coal»

Here are ten quick things you should know about coal.

Everything You Think You Know About Coal in China Is Wrong Melanie Hart, Luke Bassett, and Blaine Johnson Center for American Progress May 2017

The U.S. government continues to aggressively fund coal - related projects despite all that is known about coal's impacts on health, climate and the economy.

Not exact matches

Grill the meat about 4 inches above the hot coals for approximately 15 minutes, turning the meat 2 or 3 times as it cooks, until it is no longer pink in the middle.

No one in the world knew more about the chemical properties of coal tar than Hofmann, and coal tar was a very important compound to know about.

He is a former director of the CIA, and he wrote about energy that, you know, [now] we're ending [an era,] and we were just talking about bunker fuel, horrible bunker fuel and we've long known the problems of using coal and other kinds of energy; so his item talks about energy that is not harmful to your health.

So one interesting factoid in the article is that although that huge land mass that we are talking about seems just, you know, mind boggling, according to the article, it's actually less land [than] that's [what's] required to run 300 equivalent energy output coal plants.

At that point, Stracher did not know very much about coal, but he had a strong background in chemical thermodynamics.

Coal ash is known to contain dangerous elements including arsenic, lead, and selenium, yet the TVA refused at first to issue any health warnings about contamination from the spill.

Steve: The first part of the book, before you get to the case - by - case analysis of the threatened and endangered birds, the first part of the book is just like a traditional book, you can sit there and read it and it has various sections and one of them talks about birds, as you know, literally canaries in coal mines and the rest of the bird species out there as our canaries in the ecological coal mine that we are in.

Many of his mistakes are big ones: he bungles the issues involving reserves and resources that are critical to his core argument about oil remaining cheap; he drastically misleads his readers about the extent to which sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions from coal - burning have been reduced; he trivializes the climate - change risks from coals carbon dioxide emissions by suggesting we know the impacts will be worth only 0.64 cents per kilowatt - hour.

According to Beijing's environmental watchdog, vehicle emissions in Beijing were responsible for about 31 percent of the hazardous airborne particles known as PM 2.5, with 22.4 percent originating from coal burning.

Current plans are to build many more coal burning plants, without taking into account what we now know about climate.

Gore was no dummy, he knows what he's doing telling people in Tennessee and Kentucky that they have no worries about coal.

Everybody understand no matter what you may think about the energy needs of the United States right now, the future is not going to be coal and oil, it's just is not going to be.

The investigators found that — pound for pound — particles from coal burning contribute about five times more to the risk of death from heart disease than other air pollution particles of the same size — less than one ten - thousandth of an inch in diameter (known as PM 2.5).

Most chronic psoriasis patients I have known through my work as a naturopath go through the stage of trying just about every conceivable lotion, potion and treatment on their skin, ranging from various natural and pharmaceutical ointments, including creams, oils, steroidal preparations, coal tar, UV radiation, and plenty more.

Meb: Which I know nothing about but we did a fun article last year on coal stocks which are down five years in a row and they're having a great year.

Knowing that these stones were coal, he asked about their source.

I don't know about you but I don't really care if the new consoles run on coal and live hamsters as long as the games are good.

Although there were a few, very few, voices in the wilderness telling of future problems from the CO 2, we know that the Fords and the Rockafellers were pretty much just plain stupid about the problems oil and coal would produce in this world.

Current plans are to build many more coal burning plants, without taking into account what we now know about climate.

It says nothing about people rushing to stoke the engine with more and more coal, or how much actual coal is added (thus the actual range of speeds to expect), or the possibility of a precipice with bridge out up ahead (runaway GW), how dangerous that might be at various speeds, entailing greater or less number of deaths, or how far or close that precipice is, which we don't know either (except we have some fossil evidence of train wrecks in which 90 % of life died, so we know it could be bad).

Our political leaders and certainly the industry behind them know perfectly well that talking about clean coal is like saying we'll have a cancer free cigarette ready for you in a few years.

I know some here will decry that I am not talking about the issues because I do not try to obsfuscate with a discussion of the spot market price of coal vs long - term contracts, or use of coal in locations other than Kansas, or Al Gore's footprint, but the issue of Global Warming IS politics (non-ratification of Kyoto and negative flag - waving ads about politicians who oppose coal), it IS public relations («Clean Coal», cleanest coal - fired plants, surface mining and mountain - top reoval rather than strip mining, etc.), and it IS about misrepresentation (Peobody framing the debate as coal vs NG when it is really coal vs every other energy source), and it IS about greed (the coal industry doing everything it can to scuttle every other energy alternaticoal vs long - term contracts, or use of coal in locations other than Kansas, or Al Gore's footprint, but the issue of Global Warming IS politics (non-ratification of Kyoto and negative flag - waving ads about politicians who oppose coal), it IS public relations («Clean Coal», cleanest coal - fired plants, surface mining and mountain - top reoval rather than strip mining, etc.), and it IS about misrepresentation (Peobody framing the debate as coal vs NG when it is really coal vs every other energy source), and it IS about greed (the coal industry doing everything it can to scuttle every other energy alternaticoal in locations other than Kansas, or Al Gore's footprint, but the issue of Global Warming IS politics (non-ratification of Kyoto and negative flag - waving ads about politicians who oppose coal), it IS public relations («Clean Coal», cleanest coal - fired plants, surface mining and mountain - top reoval rather than strip mining, etc.), and it IS about misrepresentation (Peobody framing the debate as coal vs NG when it is really coal vs every other energy source), and it IS about greed (the coal industry doing everything it can to scuttle every other energy alternaticoal), it IS public relations («Clean Coal», cleanest coal - fired plants, surface mining and mountain - top reoval rather than strip mining, etc.), and it IS about misrepresentation (Peobody framing the debate as coal vs NG when it is really coal vs every other energy source), and it IS about greed (the coal industry doing everything it can to scuttle every other energy alternatiCoal», cleanest coal - fired plants, surface mining and mountain - top reoval rather than strip mining, etc.), and it IS about misrepresentation (Peobody framing the debate as coal vs NG when it is really coal vs every other energy source), and it IS about greed (the coal industry doing everything it can to scuttle every other energy alternaticoal - fired plants, surface mining and mountain - top reoval rather than strip mining, etc.), and it IS about misrepresentation (Peobody framing the debate as coal vs NG when it is really coal vs every other energy source), and it IS about greed (the coal industry doing everything it can to scuttle every other energy alternaticoal vs NG when it is really coal vs every other energy source), and it IS about greed (the coal industry doing everything it can to scuttle every other energy alternaticoal vs every other energy source), and it IS about greed (the coal industry doing everything it can to scuttle every other energy alternaticoal industry doing everything it can to scuttle every other energy alternative).

And we know that low - cost coal - fueled electricity has helped to bring about an explosion of electrotechnologies: your coal - fueled mail delivery — e-mail — has dramatically lower emissions than traditional mail.

Re 273 — not that I am prone to agreeing with Edward Greisch, but those numbers are presumably before profit, or... Well, the number for coal seems about right, so far as I know, though it is much less than what anyone pays for retail electricity now.

I honestly think she's too young to be listening to me going on and on about such confusing stuff as oil, gas, coal, greenhouse effect, global warming, manmade climate change, population explosion (she knows about it), deforestation, desertification, rapid extinction of other species, pollution, problems, overconsumption, overindustrialization, problems, politics, economics, consumerism, and problems, religion, war, etc., etc., etc..

* The government insists that dealing with global warming is way down the priority list and since our economy is booming because of mineral exports (including heaps of coal don't you know) we should concentrate on that and not get too worried about the water situation.

How about turning the most famous song in English about the birth of Jesus into a commercial for the coal industry... OK, you guys know what that song was about before you changed the words, right?

And as long as businessmen with a vested interest (Exxon / Mobil, Peabody Coal, power companies), and economists with a political bias (CEI, Heartland, Cato, Wall Street), and lawyers (Bachmann, Cornyn, Cantor) believe that they know more about global warming than climate scientists, nothing will get done to combat global warming.

The oil and coal companies made sure everyone knew about the costs of action.

PM Malcolm Turnbull is known to have serious concerns about the burning of coal and the resulting climate change, yet he still follows the Liberal party line and promotes the dying coal industry.

As we noted last week, it's about the politics of «the handful of folks who profit off of the oil, coal and gas extraction industries, and the personal pain theywould like to avoid in cutting into a single cent of the most profitable industry the world has ever known.»

I'm not against EPA getting into some stringent controls of real pollution that may be associated with coal fired power; enough is known about clean coal that there is no reason for the (US) to put up with the kinds of gunk we used to.

We know that nuclear is about 700 times safer than coal http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/06/deaths-by-energy-source-in-forbes.html.

To achieve RCP8.5 using CO2 equivalent we would have to burn about twice as much coal as there is known to exist in an exponentially increasing manner.

On Wednesday night, the City and County of Santa Cruz, California filed two lawsuits against 29 oil, gas, and coal companies, claiming they knew about climate change and somehow hid it from the public.

Why don't you continue to represent those fine coal industry geologists by pointing out a few that «know much, much more about the mechanisms of the atmosphere and its variations over time...» than the climatologists and atmospheric scientists that make it their profession to know how atmospheres vary over time.

I don't know a thing about crypto - currency, but if it can drive the RE-OPENING of closed coal power, all the better for the environmental level of CO2

In the 1980s Greenpeace argued for a coal - fired power station to be built instead of Sizewell B even though the «greenhouse effect» was known about at the time.

When other huge oil fields or coal mines were opened in the past, we knew much less about the damage that the carbon they contained would do to the Earth's climate system and to its oceans.

Probably the only one who didn't know about them were real members of Big Coal — Peabody, Arch, all the big names — which were busily lobbying Congress and had no faith in PR campaigns.

Gore was no dummy, he knows what he's doing telling people in Tennessee and Kentucky that they have no worries about coal.

You will no longer be called the queen of kingdoms... 13 You are tired of the advice you have received.So let those who study the sky — those who tell the future by looking at the stars and the new moons — let them save you from what is about to happen to you.14 But they are like straw; fire will quickly burn them up.They can not save themselves from the power of the fire.They are not like coals that give warmth nor like a fire that you may sit beside.

These companies have known for decades that their products — coal, oil, and natural gas — cause harm, yet even today they continue to fund front groups and trade associations who seek to sow confusion about climate science and block policies designed to reduce the heat - trapping emissions that cause global warming.

I don't know if that will ever be practical, and you could well do OK on solar and wind, but you surely should have some motivation to work very hard on CCS for real, not just greenwashing or happy ads about «clean coal».

Subsidies will no longer be necessary in about 6 years time for solar (same amount of time it takes to build a coal or gas - fired power station).

There is somewhere north of 100 million tons of coal planned for export from Washington that we know about.

I don't know what to do about Asian countries turning to coal, other than try to demonstrate that it's not needed...