Sentences with phrase «less coal in»

Both have set out plans to reduce emissions, especially by using less coal in the production of electricity.

And a move toward less coal in Obama's «all of the above» energy policy.

China's stated ambition is to burn less coal in coming years than it has in the past.

And if the climate movement can keep pressuring the the government, banks and universities to invest in the future and divest from fossil fuels, it seems inevitable that we'll be burning less coal in the coming years, whether President Obama has officially waged a War on Coal or not.

But if anyone can point me to evidence that China plans to burn less coal in the long run on the basis of greenhouse concerns, I'd be happy to highlight that.

Jiang of the Energy Research Institute said that in 2014, for example, China burned less coal in total.

Not exact matches

But six miles inland, something just as unusual, if far less gaudy, is taking shape — the first coal - fired power plant in the Middle East.

Perry has repeatedly said that storing fuel on site makes coal and nuclear plants less prone to shutdowns than other power generators in the event of disasters and attacks.

The U.S. generates over 1.7 million megawatt hours from coal - fired power, compared to less than 100,000 megawatt hours in Canada, and U.S. coal generation is expected to remain roughly constant through 2040 absent any new regulations.

Solar power still amounts to less than 1 % of the nation's electrical - generating capacity — coal produces about 40 % — and its proportion will stay in the low single digits until it becomes cheaper than fossil fuels.

In some coal states in the Midwest and the South, electricity costs even less than that, and it will be a long time before solar is competitive in those regionIn some coal states in the Midwest and the South, electricity costs even less than that, and it will be a long time before solar is competitive in those regionin the Midwest and the South, electricity costs even less than that, and it will be a long time before solar is competitive in those regionin those regions.

Foley said that coal will still likely be the majority power source in 25 years in developing economies like China and India, as they have large domestic coal supplies and less domestic competition from natural gas.

Given aging coal plants and the long, steady decline of the industry, putting coal miners to work in less - hazardous jobs seems both practical and appealing.

New research from North Carolina State University and the University of Colorado Boulder finds that steep declines in the use of coal for power generation over the past decade were caused largely by less expensive natural...

There is another limitation on coal's future in Appalachia: After decades of heavy production, there is less of it to be mined.

Another hurdle for reviving coal mining in Appalachia: less coal.

In cases where the resource will probably last for a couple of hundred years, on the other hand (as in Australian coal, for example, at current extraction rates), this logic may be less compellinIn cases where the resource will probably last for a couple of hundred years, on the other hand (as in Australian coal, for example, at current extraction rates), this logic may be less compellinin Australian coal, for example, at current extraction rates), this logic may be less compelling.

Therefore greater efforts are needed by government and industry to embrace less polluting and more efficient technologies to ensure that coal becomes a much cleaner source of energy in the decades to come.

Newcastle spot prices, essentially the global benchmark price for coal, have fallen from a peak of more than $ 140 a ton in early 2011 to less than $ 70 a ton.

In India, for example, the average life expectancy is 301/2 years, compared to 681/2 years in the United States; the average annual income is less than $ 40, compared to $ 1,469 in the U.S. Energy utilized annually per capita, which is a rough index of living standard, is in some countries equivalent to.02 tons of coal, compared to 8 tons, or 400 times as much, in the U.S.. Two thirds of the world usually goes to bed hungry at nighIn India, for example, the average life expectancy is 301/2 years, compared to 681/2 years in the United States; the average annual income is less than $ 40, compared to $ 1,469 in the U.S. Energy utilized annually per capita, which is a rough index of living standard, is in some countries equivalent to.02 tons of coal, compared to 8 tons, or 400 times as much, in the U.S.. Two thirds of the world usually goes to bed hungry at nighin the United States; the average annual income is less than $ 40, compared to $ 1,469 in the U.S. Energy utilized annually per capita, which is a rough index of living standard, is in some countries equivalent to.02 tons of coal, compared to 8 tons, or 400 times as much, in the U.S.. Two thirds of the world usually goes to bed hungry at nighin the U.S. Energy utilized annually per capita, which is a rough index of living standard, is in some countries equivalent to.02 tons of coal, compared to 8 tons, or 400 times as much, in the U.S.. Two thirds of the world usually goes to bed hungry at nighin some countries equivalent to.02 tons of coal, compared to 8 tons, or 400 times as much, in the U.S.. Two thirds of the world usually goes to bed hungry at nighin the U.S.. Two thirds of the world usually goes to bed hungry at night.

Business leaders called today for the government to invest more in nuclear and clean coal technology and put less emphasis on wind power.

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.&raquIn 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.&raquin 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.»

«He's targeting the largest share of coal production from an energy source that provides the largest share of U.S. electricity even now — removing coal will create a far less diverse energy supply and damages economies in coal states.»

If, for example, a company were planning to sell the federal coal in the United States, where coal prices are low, BLM would theoretically charge it less than if the company planned to sell it in more lucrative markets.

Pretreating with thermal depolymerization also makes coal more friable, so less energy is needed to crush it before combustion in electricity - generating plants.

The average cost of generating nuclear energy in the United States was less than two cents per kilowatt - hour in 2006, according to the Atlanta - based utility data provider Ventyx, which puts it on par with coal.

In fact, it would take 3,600 projects of Sleipner's scale — which is the largest such project underway — to reduce current carbon dioxide emissions from coal by less than half, the report says.

Robert Finkelman, a former USGS coordinator of coal quality who oversaw research on uranium in fly ash in the 1990s, says that for the average person the by - product accounts for a miniscule amount of background radiation, probably less than 0.1 percent of total background radiation exposure.

In 2007 he was still casting about for a novel resource — one that contained so much power it would cost less than coal — when he had an epiphany in midaiIn 2007 he was still casting about for a novel resource — one that contained so much power it would cost less than coal — when he had an epiphany in midaiin midair.

As these coal plants get used less and less, many will retire in the next few years.

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

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.

China's massive jump in coal use - to 3.8 billion metric tons in 2012 from 2.5 billion metric tons in 2006 - drove prices of benchmark Asian thermal coal to average $ 121 a metric ton in 2011, from less than $ 50 five years earlier.

«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.

Even in the United States — where much has been made of the switch away from coal to less carbon - intensive gas — coal is making a comeback.

Ironically, if the world burns significantly less coal, that would lessen CO2 emissions but also reduce aerosols in the atmosphere that block the sun (such as sulfate particulates), so we would have to limit CO2 to below roughly 405 ppm.

It's less costly to get electricity from wind turbines and solar panels than coal - fired power plants when climate change costs and other health impacts are factored in, according to a new study published in Springer's Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences.

According to the National Bureau of Statistics, China last year invested about $ 74.8 billion in coal mining and dressing facilities, about $ 7.8 billion less than in 2013.

With more money for development of novel designs and public financial support for construction — perhaps as part of a clean energy portfolio standard that lumps in all low - carbon energy sources, not just renewables or a carbon tax — nuclear could be one of the pillars of a three - pronged approach to cutting greenhouse gas emissions: using less energy to do more (or energy efficiency), low - carbon power, and electric cars (as long as they are charged with electricity from clean sources, not coal burning).

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.

EUROPE»S plans for tackling global warming by driving down emissions of carbon dioxide may have backfired in Germany, where they have encouraged energy companies to build coal - fired power stations instead of gas - fired stations, which emit less CO2.

In addition, geothermal power plants have energy efficiencies of just 8 to 15 percent, less than half that of coal plants.

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.

Even China's efforts to combat those rising concentrations — in part by switching from burning coal to capturing the power latent in rivers like the Yangtze — falter in the face of global warming, as a result of less water in those rivers due to drought and the dwindling glaciers of the Tibetan Plateau.

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.

Less work required to capture the same amount of CO2 results in lowering the cost of using CCUS technology, making coal - to - chemicals factories a promising sector to reduce carbon emissions.

Although fracking in the U.S. produces more than 100 billion gallons of wastewater per year, the process requires significantly less water per unit of energy than extraction and processing for coal and nuclear power, according to past research by Jackson and his colleagues.

In fact, a typical coal - fired power plant exposes local residents to as many as 18 millirems of radiation yearly, whereas a nuclear power plant emits less than six millirems per annum, according to researchers at Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

The new reductions will bring coal use in the city to less than 7 million tons this year, down from around 22 million tons in 2013

For example, a study by Vasilis Fthenakis and Hung Chul Kim of Columbia University (2009) found that, on a life - cycle electricity - output basis — including direct and indirect land transformation — utility - scale PV in the U.S. Southwest requires less land than the average U.S. power plant using surface - mined coal.