Sentences with phrase «less fossil fuels because»

But in any event, we are now forced to consume and spend less because debt from now on is going to be harder to get, and we are also forced to use less fossil fuels because they are already too expensive.

Not exact matches

Doesn't food grown close to home help prevent global warming because it requires less fossil fuel to transport?

But those barbs have been largely absent, perhaps in part because the price of gasoline is low, giving traditional Republican attacks around Democrats» fossil fuel policies less momentum, Taylor said.

One article I was recently reading stated that hemp seed oil produces a cleaner buring fuel (nearly 90 % burn, with considerably less ash and CO2 production) than any fossil fuel (33 % burn at the most efficient) and was actually banned because the oil industry (and the rope industry, as hemp weave made a stronger and less expensive rope than current materials) decided to push their congresscritters to close it down because hemp could make Marijuana.

The Way Forward As China seeks a cleaner, softer path of development, renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, and geothermal are attractive not only because of their lower carbon emissions profiles, but because they use far less water than their fossil fuel counterparts.

In addition, the popularity of natural gas relies, in part, on its reputation as a «bridge fuel» — the fossil fuel that will lead to a renewable energy future because it's cleaner burning, emits less greenhouse gas and uses water less intensively in certain steps of the process.

Inglis touts a carbon tax as a classic win - win - win because it makes the nation less reliant on oil imports from enemies, creates homegrown clean technology jobs and cleans up air sullied with pollutants from burning fossil fuels.

The authors contend the world's economies are heavily dependent on fossil fuels because such fuels are and will continue to be safer, less expensive, more reliable, and of vastly greater supply than alternative fuels such as wind and solar.

If and when we are forced to move to these power sources because the fossil fuels have really run out, we can build them all in less than a decade.

Because there would be no connection between how much a person pays in fees and the size of the rebate, there would be a strong incentive to use less fossil fuel in order to keep more of that money.

Annual water requirements of a PHES - supported 100 % renewable electricity grid would be much less than the current fossil fuel system, because wind and PV do not require cooling water.

The «pollution paradigm» of climate change limits the opportunities for addressing or solving the issue, in part because fossil fuel emissions make up such a small fraction of the annual flux of CO2 into the atmosphere (less than 3 %).

Even though global energy demand is the same in either case, effectively we will need to produce less energy because less is wasted through inefficient fossil fuel burning.

These sources of energy and efficiency technologies are in many cases cheaper than fossils, have steep cost curves, produce a positive ROI for businesses and consumers, are anti-inflationary because they don't use a commodity fuel or consume less fuel, have the ability to decentralize and stabilize energy supply.

According to the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers, wind power has «relatively little economic value» and because of its intermittent nature it needs back - up from natural gas, which means more fossil fuel use for power, not less.

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].

«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.»

It should be noted though that eliminating the indirect fossil fuel subsidy could actually make wind & solar less competitive because they are dependent on flexible dispatchable plants with relatively low CAPEX.

Compressed natural gas is beneficial because it contains less carbon than other fossil fuels used for transportation.

These proposals include coercion (the «Clean Power Plan») and increased taxpayer subsidies, which are required because the «renewables» Hillary favors are more expensive and less reliable than fossil fuel - generated electricity and would not be built without the coercion and subsidies.

For another, it increases mitigation costs: failing to act now makes it more difficult to change because it allows additional investment in fossil fuel based infrastructure in developed and especially less developed countries.

A carbon tax is likely to increase the use of natural gas in the electricity sector because natural gas is the less carbon - intensive fossil fuel.

Because changes in the market away from fossil fuels will inevitably make those energy sources less expensive, carbon taxes keep their prices high, reflecting the costs imposed on society by carbon emissions.

A far less costly option, although still a fossil - fueled one, might be the as - yet - unreleased $ 6,800 Elio Motors vehicle, which is touted as being capable of getting 84 mpg, but there's another contender in the race to build clean affordable vehicles, and instead of being powered by electricity, the $ 10,000 AIRPod boasts of being a «Zero Pollution Vehicle» because it runs on compressed air.

When the carbon comes back up, the ratios of 12C to 13C are preserved: emissions from the burning of fossil fuels, for example, are relatively «light» because they originated from the tissues of living organisms; emissions from volcanoes are more or less «normal» because they came from molten crust that was once the ocean floor.

Fossil fuel companies are not the same as cigarette companies because without one there is one fewer vice, and probably a lot less cancer in the human population.

Because they use less energy, ENERGY STAR certified products reduce air pollution and greenhouse gases caused by burning fossil fuels.

The comparison can not be exact, however, because fossil fueled peaker plants run less than half the time a solar peaker could with no fuel cost.

A house that consumes less energy reduces greenhouse gases because less fossil fuel is required to operate it.

Double - paned windows are a boon to the environment as well, because when you burn less fossil fuel, you create fewer greenhouse gas emissions.