Sentences with phrase «less coal because»

The true fact of the matter is that utilities are burning less coal because gas is cheaper, and likely will be for some time.

Many coal - fired power stations are burning less coal because of wind farms.

Not exact matches

Electric utilities have been replacing coal plants with gas - fired facilities because they are more efficient and less expensive to operate.

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.

He said that from the 1970s into the 1990s regulation of smokestacks focused largely on the stench and opacity of the plumes because of concerns about coal - fired plants and steel mills, and less attention was paid to the chemical plants.

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.

In fact, much of the overall decrease in energy consumption can be traced to the shift from coal to gas, because modern gas - fired plants may use up to 46 percent less energy to produce the same amount of electricity.»

«The CO2 emissions related to China's exports are large not just because they export a lot of stuff or because they specialize in energy - demanding industries, but because their manufacturing technologies are less advanced and they rely primarily on coal for energy,» said co-author Klaus Hubacek, a University of Maryland professor of geographical sciences.

They found that because natural gas plants are overall more efficient than coal plants, producing more energy per unit of carbon, they could cause less warming in the long term.

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.

He said coal power generation is no longer socially acceptable in many parts of the country and most electric power companies prefer natural gas and renewables because they cost less.

China has emitted significantly less carbon since 2000 than previously estimated because of erroneous assumptions about the quality of the country's coal, a study released today claims.

Allegedly that's because these new coal plants are «super-efficient» getting more power with less coal.

None of the numbers regarding openings and closings are likely to matter in the long run because electric power companies are using less and less coal to generate electricity — the primary use of coal in the U.S.

Even solar is thwarted because it would mean that we might need to burn less coal since a cetain amount of energy would be produced by solar.

Because switching from coal to cleaner and more affordable energy would result in less coal mined, less coal burned, and less carbon pollution emitted, BLM's decisions do have a climate impact — and a big one at that.

John Sterman, a professor at the MIT Sloan School of Management, published a paper earlier this year that argued burning pellets would release more carbon dioxide than coal in the short term because it was a less efficient source of energy.

Emissions from coal - fired power plants, which emit much less BC because of their better combustion efficiency, are not included here.»

US Appalachian Coal has become less important because of the sulphur content regulations (US power emissions), which Wyoming Coal meets (albeit with lower thermal value).

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

For the minority who use common sense, very little data is necessary to know that a «low carbon» economy is far less efficient than an economy run on fossil fuel energy [coal, preferably, because it is the least expensive power].

Because the amount of cooling necessary is much less per unit of electricity output in NGCC plants than in coal or nuclear plants, dry cooling systems are more economical for NGCC plants than for other thermoelectric options.

Even Obama administration officials have said gas was a «bridge fuel» to a green energy economy because it emits less carbon dioxide than coal when burned for power.

This is because wood is both less efficient at the point of combustion and has larger processing and supply chain emissions than 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.

It takes six decades between the time the decision is made to go with a particular energy generation form and the time it's end of life; committing to coal or natural gas right now, today, is the less economical choice, and fiscally irresponsible, because by the time the plant is built, there will be a 50:1 ratio of cheaper solar / wind / hydro / geothermal / wave years of service committed to.

The US natural gas industry has often argued that a switch to natural gas will significantly reduce ghg emissions from the electricity sector because natural gas emits almost 50 % less CO2 per unit of energy produced than coal combustion.

«The underlying energy consumption trends that resulted in these changes — mainly because more electricity has been generated from natural gas than from other fossil fuels — have helped to lower the U.S. emissions level since 2005 because natural gas is a less carbon - intensive fuel than either coal or petroleum.»

They also like it because it provides a less obvious way to bribe coal plants.

Washington might do a James Lovelock about face on CO2, either through a regime change or because of continued stagnant global warming, and coal would then be less demonized.

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.

It makes the USE 25 look good because the concurrent de-commissioning of inefficient unionist and communist - era coal industries allowed the USE to get credit for large, relatively less painful carbon cuts.

This was what the CPP was doing, and economics too because coal, especially clean coal, is less cost - efficient for energy providers than natural gas.

Not it is your argument that PV will make electricity generation less secure because a purported low LCOE will make it uneconomic to run reliable baseload plant of which the only realistic options are coal and nuclear.

At the moment, reduced shipping from the US is unlikely to mean that China burns less coal, because China has invested heavily in coal - burning powerplants.

This matters because the longer it takes, the less competitive coal becomes against renewable energy sources and the more likely we are to see coal mines closed before they are exhausted.

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.

Because of the amount of sorbent needed, DSI will likely be implemented most often at plants that are 300 megawatts or less and burn low - sulfur coal.

I'm glad that China is expanding nuclear capacity, because I see it as much less dangerous than coal.

Although hydrogen generates about 62,000 Btu per pound, it accounts for only 5 percent or less of coal and not all of this is available for heat because part of the hydrogen combines with oxygen to form water vapor.

Coal power plants are obviously a big deal because they are producing 50 % of the world's electricity and not less than 1 % like PV does!

Another study takes on methane leaks from natural gas production, saying that because of these natural gas vehicles are less green than claimed, though replacing coal power plants with natural gas will help the climate.

I'm not persuaded because, as explained in other posts, a megawatt of unpredictable, unreliable wind capacity has less value than a megawatt of predictable, reliable natural gas or coal capacity.

Other states that will be hit, but to a lesser extent, are North Dakota, Oklahoma, Colorado, New Mexico, Wyoming and, if oil prices remain depressed for a while, West Virginia (because of the price substitution effect between natural gas and coal).