Sentences with phrase «like coal and nuclear»

NEI's Matt Crozat said current power markets don't properly value baseload power sources, like coal and nuclear.

«Base load» power is provided by energy sources like coal and nuclear.

The French government must shift financing from dirty energy like coal and nuclear, towards the socially - controlled and owned renewable energy the world needs.»

Transmission has always been important to generation — typically transmission costs can be up to half the cost of new energy from even traditional sources like coal and nuclear power.

Robert (NOT Robert Rapier) also said «I don't see why baseload power like coal and nuclear get credit for producing electricity all night long that nobody wants.»

I don't see why baseload power like coal and nuclear get credit for producing electricity all night long that nobody wants.»

Not exact matches

Energy Secretary Rick Perry commissioned the study in April to evaluate whether «regulatory burdens» imposed by past administrations — including that of President Barack Obama — had forced the premature retirement of baseload power plants that provide nonstop power, like those fired by coal and nuclear fuel.

The United States on Tuesday imposed sanctions against 13 Chinese and North Korean organizations Washington accused of helping evade nuclear restrictions against Pyongyang and supporting the country through trade of commodities like coal.

The whole thing started in 2015, when Stanford professor Mark Jacobson and some colleagues published a paper arguing that, by mid-century, the United States could be powered entirely by clean energy sources — and by clean, he meant the really clean stuff (wind, solar, hydropower), not the only - somewhat - cleaner - than - coal stuff like natural gas, nuclear energy, and biofuels.

With high oil prices persistently poised to derail the global economy, with large economies like Germany and Japan swearing off nuclear in the wake of the Fukushima Daiichi disaster, with coal hampered by looming emissions caps, unexpectedly abundant gas seems poised to fill the energy void.

He says the pension fund is also shifting away from investments like coal and he's not enthused about nuclear because as a resident of Long Island, electric customers are still paying for a nuclear plant which never opened.

At that price, coal, natural gas, nuclear and renewable electricity sources like wind become roughly cost - competitive, Moniz says.

With consumption growing, oil supplies tight, and the world in a warming trend, the search is on for better energy sources — clean coal, safe nuclear reactors, and more far - reaching ideas like artificial photosynthesis.

Wheeler examined International Energy Agency data for 174 countries on investments in six low - carbon power sources (hydro, geothermal, nuclear, biomass, wind and solar) to find the incremental costs of clean power compared to a cheaper, carbon - intensive option like a conventional coal - fired power plant.

December 8, 2017 India's steel industry, like America's, is dominated by electric - based processes November 20, 2017 Link between growth in economic activity and electricity use is changing around the world November 16, 2017 Growth in global energy - related carbon dioxide emissions expected to slow November 8, 2017 EIA forecasts growth in world nuclear electricity capacity, led by non-OECD countries October 25, 2017 China leads the growth in projected global natural gas consumption October 10, 2017 Buildings energy consumption in India is expected to increase faster than in other regions October 4, 2017 Global gas - to - liquids growth is dominated by two projects in South Africa and Uzbekistan September 27, 2017 Chinese coal - fired electricity generation expected to flatten as mix shifts to renewables September 19, 2017 Beyond China and India, energy consumption in non-OECD Asia continues to grow September 14, 2017 EIA projects 28 % increase in world energy use by 2040

This would include costs like storing and monitoring nuclear waste indefinitely, CO2 emitted to the atmosphere by fossil fuels, nitrous oxides and sulfur oxides from coal degrading the environment through acid rain, maintaining a large military to protect our oil supply lines from the middle east, pollutants entering water supplies from solar panel manufacture, pollutants generated by drilling for gas, etc., etc..

Meanwhile we will spend lots of money on things of limited use while not doing things like substituting gas for coal, and nuclear, than can have a big effect now.

Over 50 percent of electricity in the U.S. comes from lower carbon sources of energy like hydro, nuclear, natural gas, wind and solar and just 45 percent comes from dirty coal.

So would ordinary coal relative to natural gas and (like it or not) nuclear power.

Compare this to other subsidized sources like natural gas and coal, which receive 64 cents / MWh, Hydro: 82 cents, Nuclear: $ 3.14, and Geothermal: $ 12.85 / MWh.

Coal and nuclear are only cheap if you ignore externialities like waste disposal, decommissioning and health costs from particulates.

In other markets where windpower was significant, like the Midwest / Central and Texas regions, the large majority of negative pricing were attributed to nuclear, coal and less flexible natural gas power plant operations unable to adjust as demand changed.

Between 1966 and 1974, the Sierra Club started to favor coal over nuclear, even though prominent nuclear advocates like Oak Ridge National Lab's Alvin Weinberg were warning the world of the threat of global warming from continued coal use.

Still, all regions of the nation can take advantage of cleaner electric power, like nuclear, waste - to - energy, coal with carbon capture and sequestration, and natural gas.

Those include distribution - level efforts like tree trimming and automation, outage recovery efforts, and investments to improve customer resilience, they wrote, while the onsite fuel supplies championed by the coal and nuclear sector are seen as less beneficial.

Clean electricity, their aides explained, includes wind, solar, and hydropower; nuclear energy; and even fossil fuels like coal and natural gas, as long as those are burned in plants that capture the CO2 emissions and trap them underground.

It is not surprising that there are many skeptics who like I am, are very knowledgeable in many of the over lapping fields, of gas chromatography, anthropology, radio graphics of X-ray and particle physics, biological plant and animal processes, agriculture, high power radio transmission and reception, and its attendant multiplexing of signals, mining, reforestation plans and progress realities, nuclear, gas, and coal power plant construction techniques, organic gardening, astronomy, stellar physics, global circulation pattern drivers, and have also spent considerable time out doors in a tent and sleeping bag.

These talking points are designed to sound like principles, but those who amplify them generally have no problem with subsidies for oil and gas or nuclear and coal, which historically have dwarfed support for clean energy.

He'll be profiling the choice in front of us: green energy solutions like wind, solar and geothermal, or polluting energy problems like coal burning, nuclear plants, mountaintop removal mining and, of course, catastrophic oil spills.

And at 5 - 9 cents, it is currently posing severe competition to energy sources like coal and natural gas (5 - 10 cents) and nuclear (11 centAnd at 5 - 9 cents, it is currently posing severe competition to energy sources like coal and natural gas (5 - 10 cents) and nuclear (11 centand natural gas (5 - 10 cents) and nuclear (11 centand nuclear (11 cents).

like nuclear, coal, and the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline.

Peak natural gas and coal production do not arise for several decades (see a previous post), giving plenty of time to improve on the eventually inevitable nuclear designs if one doesn't like the present «best» iterations.

Plug - in hybrids or hydrogen - powered fuel cells would allow us to run our cars using renewable sources such as solar and wind, other clean and abundant sources like nuclear and even coal - preferably from power plants employing advanced clean coal technologies that I hope will soon be the norm.

«A simultaneous exit from nuclear energy and coal is not possible in a highly industrialized country like Germany.»

Anyway, it is interesting that you can wrap your head around a statement like this (basically, electricity produced by gas / nuclear prevents production from coal and thus saved emissions), but are unable to understand that renewables do exactly the same (replacing emissions from coal) and they even do it more effectively than gas and way cheaper than nuclear.

John Sauven, executive director of Greenpeace, said: «The EU needs to adopt a science - based cap on emissions, ditch plans for dirty new coal plants and nuclear power stations that will give tiny emission cuts at enormous and dangerous cost, end aviation expansion and ban wasteful products like incandescent lightbulbs.»

The PWU doesn't like that — the fact that jobs at coal - fired power plants are being phased out and there is a significant threat to nuclear jobs as well.

Nor will energy storage turn them into reliable, baseload energy sources like nuclear and coal, at least until it is much cheaper.

For instance, global coal use would have to peak before 2020; power plants and factories would have to get a lot more efficient; things like nuclear power and renewables would have to expand at an even faster rate.

We don't want LNG [liquid natural gas] facilities anywhere near us; we don't want to explore for oil and gas; we don't like coal; we won't touch nuclear.

Indian utilities may also want to consider a coal retirement policy previously used to help utilities retire nuclear assets through private - sector bonds, now being considered by utilities in Western U.S. states like Colorado and New Mexico to transition from coal to clean.

«The annual - only requirement prefers baseload fuel - burning resources, including coal and nuclear as well as gas, over cheaper resources like renewables and demand response,» said Jennifer Chen of the Natural Resources Defense Council.

«It's not like power supply of the past where you had a bunch of nuclear power plants, a couple coal plants and some gas - fired generation with the odd renewable asset thrown in, and then a jumbled mix of grey and green power being sold at the consumer end,» says Uli Suedhoff, a director at GE Renewable Energy in Europe.

One hypothesis might be that while electricity from solar and wind became cheaper, other energy sources like coal, nuclear, and natural gas became more expensive, eliminating any savings, and raising the overall price of electricity.

There was only one reason for the whole farce, the destruction of the coal industry by oil and nuclear interests to which end they utilised the free energy of greenie emotions and we have ended up with countles scenarios like this:

But let's be very clear: it is simply not realistic — as anti-nuclear energy activists like Ms. Collard argue — to replace existing nuclear and coal - fired plants, which currently make up 68 per cent of Ontario's electricity production, with renewables alone.

Your proposal to build new nuclear plants in place of new coal - fired plants makes sense, except to those people who have been brainwashed by the earlier anti-nuclear fear mongering campaigns by environmental lobby groups like WWF and Greenpeace.

«One point I like to stress is that we should think of coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear, as clean energy.»

Under this scheme, you would be putting coal and nuclear power into your car, which to me sounds like an electric vehicle without the battery problems.

In practice, «alternative energy» subsidies have overwhelmingly gone to things like corn ethanol, nuclear energy, «clean coal,» and hydrogen; the way things are going we can expect liquid coal to hop on the bandwagon as well.