Sentences with phrase «less coal and oil»

Take the growth of renewable energy: every rooftop solar panel means less coal and oil coming out of the ground.

Seems to me that it would be more reliable to manufacture wind turbines and start to burn less coal and oil...

Not exact matches

The natural gas plants are necessary partly because of expected load growth, partly because of the intermittent nature of solar power and partly because of the planned retirement of around 3,000 megawatts of generation powered by less efficient coal and oil plants, he said.

Quite simply, the world will be burning less oil, less coal, and maybe even less natural gas.

Combination of economic trends and policies Still, for now an array of Obama administration actions and economic trends are conspiring to cut emissions, according to EIA: Americans are using less oil because of high gasoline prices; carmakers are complying with federal fuel economy standards; electricity companies are becoming more efficient; state renewable energy rules are ushering wind and solar energy onto the power grids; gas prices are competitive with coal; and federal air quality regulations are closing the dirtiest power plants.

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.

By FRED PEARCE The large enterprises that mine coal and drill for oil and gas face a world increasingly determined to use less of their products.

Keeping in mind the enormous stake that panel members ExxonMobil and Shell have in the oil, natural gas and coal industries, here is a look at the panel's take on why oil and coal have been so difficult to replace by the following alternative energy sources: Natural gas ExxonMobil favors boosting the U.S.'s consumption of natural gas, in part, because it produces at least 50 percent less greenhouse gas per hour when burned compared with coal, Nazeer Bhore, ExxonMobil senior technology advisor, said during the panel.

«With less than 5 percent of world population, the U.S. uses one - third of the world's paper, a quarter of the world's oil, 23 percent of the coal, 27 percent of the aluminum, and 19 percent of the copper,» he reports.

It's also critical to a future less dependent on foreign oil: Hydraulic fracturing, «clean coal» technologies, nuclear fuel production, and carbon storage (the keystone of the strategy to address climate change) all count on pushing waste into rock formations below the earth's surface.

The assessments shall reflect the relative carbon dioxide emission rates of different fossil fuel - based electricity, and initially shall be not less than the following amounts for coal, natural gas, and oil:

The numbers aren't perfect — they don't fully reflect the recent surge in unconventional energy sources like shale gas, and they don't accurately reflect coal reserves, which are subject to less stringent reporting requirements than oil and gas.

Shell states that tar sands are less damaging that coal: Well since when was coal and oil used to the same ends unless they are talking about widespread adaption of CTL technology which could happen in some countries with large scale coal rserves I guess but even I doubt that CTL projects will scale to 3 — 5 mbpd which is the projected output of Albertas oil sands come 2030.

Less commonly, countries spoke of reducing the use of inefficient coal - fired power plants, lowering methane emissions from oil and gas production, reforming fossil fuel subsidies, and carbon pricing, the report says.

The World Energy Outlook 2016, released last week, is just one among an increasing line of studies showing how nations need to slow and, ultimately, phase out investment in new fossil fuel supply infrastructure — from oil fields and pipelines to coal mines — if they are serious about keeping warming to 2C or less.

There is not a single similar institution in the U.S. — oh, you might point to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, managed jointly by Bechtel and Battelle (oil pipelines and «clean coal» - FutureGen projects), but they get their funding slashed every year, more or less — and they cancelled their most promising biofuel program, algal biofuel, back in 1997 — good luck with that.

Of course, in the same way that Jevons could not see the ability for oil, gas, and nuclear power to render us less fundamentally reliant on coal, I am sure we are making equally egregious errors in our predictions of energy transitions (or at least some of us are).

Nader said, «We do not need nuclear power... We have a far greater amount of fossil fuels in this country than we're owning up to... the tar sands... oil out of shale... methane in coal beds...» Sierra Club consultant Amory Lovins said, «Coal can fill the real gaps in our fuel economy with only a temporary and modest (less than twofold at peak) expansion of mining.&racoal beds...» Sierra Club consultant Amory Lovins said, «Coal can fill the real gaps in our fuel economy with only a temporary and modest (less than twofold at peak) expansion of mining.&raCoal can fill the real gaps in our fuel economy with only a temporary and modest (less than twofold at peak) expansion of mining.»

Those who study energy patterns say we are in a gradual transition from oil and coal to natural gas, a fuel that emits far less carbon but still contributes to global warming.

Combustion of coal, oil, and natural gas, and to a lesser extent deforestation, land - cover change, and emissions of halocarbons and other greenhouse gases, are rapidly increasing the atmospheric concentrations of climate - warming gases.

Fossil fuels including «coal, but also oil and, to a lesser degree, gas — needs to be progressively replaced without delay,» are specifically identified as forms of tyranny over creation.

He claimed that reliance on railroads to move tar sands oil meant that less rail capacity was available to transport coal and other things.

But delivering those same services with less energy, more productively used, could shrink 2050 usage to 71 quads, eliminate the need for oil, coal, nuclear energy, and one - third of the natural gas, and save $ 5 trillion in net - present - valued cost.

The 2009 State of the Climate report gives these top indicators: humans emitted 30 billion tons of of CO2 into the atmosphere each year from the burning of fossil fuels (oil, coal, and natural gas), less oxygen in the air from the burning of fossil fuels, rising fossil fuel carbon in corals, nights warming faster than days, satellites show less of the earth's heat escaping into space, cooling of the stratosphere or upper atmosphere, warming of the troposphere or lower atmosphere, etc..

Burning coal, for example, also produces copious quantities of greenhouse gasses (even with «clean coal» technologies) and our coal reserves are decidedly less limited than our oil reserves.

Toss in scale economies, and the result will be lower costs, greater energy security and an increased state economic multiplier effect as less money drains offshore to pay for expensive and dirty imported coal and oil.

Cheaper natural gas has pushed out older, less - efficient coal and oil generation; however, the region's increasing overreliance on natural gas will provide few additional emissions benefits and increases risks of price volatility or supply disruption.

4) Will policies aimed at reducing the use of coal and oil be more or less cost - effective than policies aimed at adaptation to forecast changes as they emerge?

The economics means that the oil price will go up as demand exceeds supply and at that point we will turn to less likely sources of oil, such as the tar sands, but eventually we will reach a point where converting coal to the usual oil products, such as chemicals and gasoline, will be a more economically viable route.

Coal is substantially less costly than other fossil fuels such as natural gas and oil.

And, of course, why nuclear if coal, gas and oil are cheaper and therefore (because less in need of human labour) cleanAnd, of course, why nuclear if coal, gas and oil are cheaper and therefore (because less in need of human labour) cleanand oil are cheaper and therefore (because less in need of human labour) cleanand therefore (because less in need of human labour) cleaner.

If they included all the imported good, manufactured in the third world with coal, and then shipped to them, using oil, their own emissions would be a lot less significant.

The relation to burning of oil, coal and gas as related to CO2 is probably less than this 12 % number.

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.

Therefore it is only just that those who profit from the sale of petroleum and coal be taxed (a «carbon tax», which sounds less direct than, say, a gasoline tax, or a home - heating oil tax) with the proceeds of the tax to be paid back to citizens in various ways.

«Natural gas displaces coal and to a lesser extent oil, driving down emissions, but it also displaces some nuclear power, pushing up emissions.

Natural gas (methane (CH 4)-RRB- is the cleanest burning, emitting less carbon dioxide than the others (coal and oil).

The combustion of natural gas emits almost 30 % less carbon dioxide than oil, and just under 45 % less carbon dioxide than coal.

There are rules that can be applied like replacing less efficient fuels (in terms of energy per CO2 released) like coal with more efficient ones like natural gas, and never switching towards less efficient fuels like shale oil from more efficient ones like regular oil.

That has come courtesy of its association with conventional natural gas - which produces much less CO2 on combustion than coal and oil, and which is often touted as a «clean» fuel.

We assumed only that due to the biological and physical effects the ratio fabsorbed (t) / (total CO2 content of then air) is more or less constant, hence a simple response pulse response exp -LRB-- t / lifetime) is applied to the anthropic time series of coal, gas, oil and cement which have different delta13C As the isotopic signature of (CO2 natural)(t) is slowly decreasing because plants living days or centuries ago are now rotting and degassing and as molecules entered in the ocean decades ago are now in the upwellings after a slow migration along the equal density surface from the high latitudes where those surface are surfacing at depth zero, there are common sense constraints or bounds on the possible evolution of the delta13C of the natural out - gassed CO2 molecules.

In the last few years it has made even less given the rapid fall of oil, coal, and natural gas prices, which have made «green energy» even less economically competitive with fossil fuels than it already was.

Methane has the advantage over oil and coal of producing less carbon dioxide gas when burned.

Not to sound too cynical but I think we'll see subsidised Coal to Oil production way ahead of policies that reduce the use of fossil fuels — insuring a supply of oil being seen as urgent and Climate Change as less urgeOil production way ahead of policies that reduce the use of fossil fuels — insuring a supply of oil being seen as urgent and Climate Change as less urgeoil being seen as urgent and Climate Change as less urgent.

Greenhouse gas emissions from coal, gas and oil combustion since the dawn of the 19th century and the coming of the machine - age century have pushed carbon dioxide ratios in the atmosphere from less than 300 parts per million to 400ppm everywhere, and global average temperatures have risen by 1 °C.

And of course there can be good reasons for using less energy, including being less economically wasteful and curbing the environmental impacts of energy sources such as oil and coAnd of course there can be good reasons for using less energy, including being less economically wasteful and curbing the environmental impacts of energy sources such as oil and coand curbing the environmental impacts of energy sources such as oil and coand coal.

Since much RE now costs the same or less than coal, oil their real cost is Zero or even profitable and far less costly as fossil fuel costs rise..

This might lead coal - rich countries to use less coal and more oil and gas, thus lowering their emissions.

«The temperature change over the last century, even if it were all due to man, is so much less than the models predict,» said Lindzen, who has received government funding for his research during Republican and Democratic administrations, but hasn't conducted any research for oil or coal companies.

«They will be less able to fight over climate change than they were before and they will retreat in a process fight over defending the coal industry and the oil and gas industry.»