Sentences with phrase «little energy per»

Sensitivity equals dT / dF is only valid for an absolute temperature and absolute forcing over a small range of change and since the current «state of the artistry» «surface temperature average» requires using anomaly from very cold locations with very little energy per degree of anomaly, what «surface» is averaged impacts the estimate of «sensitivity».

The reason is easy to understand: renewable fuels are energy - diffuse, meaning that there is very little energy per unit of mass compared to both fossil fuels and uranium.

Over the past millennium this graph, most of which is obtained from Antarctic ice cores, shows CO2 holding steady at 280 ± 5 ppm up to 1800, when global population was about a billion people and sailing ships and the horse - and - buggy were the most advanced forms of transportation, consuming relatively little energy per capita compared with today.

«There is simply too little energy per cell to allow growth,» says Hans Røy at Aarhus University in Denmark.

Not exact matches

Breakeven costs are now as little as $ 25 per barrel, according to the Dallas Fed's most recent survey, so energy companies here no longer need $ 100 oil to make lots of money.

For example, sticking to the habit of doing 1 pushup per day requires very little energy to get started.

In a recent and highly informative article in Business Insider originally published in The Motley Fool and using energy industry consultant Rystad Energy research, author Matthew DiLallo shows that it costs Saudi Arabia around $ 9 per barrel to breakeven, Russia $ 19 and U.S. shale a little overenergy industry consultant Rystad Energy research, author Matthew DiLallo shows that it costs Saudi Arabia around $ 9 per barrel to breakeven, Russia $ 19 and U.S. shale a little overEnergy research, author Matthew DiLallo shows that it costs Saudi Arabia around $ 9 per barrel to breakeven, Russia $ 19 and U.S. shale a little over $ 23.

These bars are high in fibre at 7g per bar, provide a little dose protein, natural sweetness from the dates for quick releasing energy, and a nice boost of antioxidants!

This is an incredibly difficult question to answer for a variety of reasons, most importantly because over the years our once vaunted «beautiful» style of play has become a shadow of it's former self, only to be replaced by a less than stellar «plug and play» mentality where players play out of position and adjustments / substitutions are rarely forthcoming before the 75th minute... if you look at our current players, very few would make sense in the traditional Wengerian system... at present, we don't have the personnel to move the ball quickly from deep - lying position, efficient one touch midfielders that can make the necessary through balls or the disciplined and pacey forwards to stretch defences into wide positions, without the aid of the backs coming up into the final 3rd, so that we can attack the defensive lanes in the same clinical fashion we did years ago... on this current squad, we have only 1 central defender on staf, Mustafi, who seems to have any prowess in the offensive zone or who can even pass two zones through so that we can advance play quickly out of our own end (I have seen some inklings that suggest Holding might have some offensive qualities but too early to tell)... unfortunately Mustafi has a tendency to get himself in trouble when he gets overly aggressive on the ball... from our backs out wide, we've seen pace from the likes of Bellerin and Gibbs and the spirited albeit offensively stunted play of Monreal, but none of these players possess the skill - set required in the offensive zone for the new Wenger scheme which requires deft touches, timely runs to the baseline and consistent crossing, especially when Giroud was playing and his ratio of scored goals per clear chances was relatively low (better last year though)... obviously I like Bellerin's future prospects, as you can't teach pace, but I do worry that he regressed last season, which was obvious to Wenger because there was no way he would have used Ox as the right side wing - back so often knowing that Barcelona could come calling in the off - season, if he thought otherwise... as for our midfielders, not a single one, minus the more confident Xhaka I watched played for the Swiss national team a couple years ago, who truly makes sense under the traditional Wenger model... Ramsey holds onto the ball too long, gives the ball away cheaply far too often and abandons his defensive responsibilities on a regular basis (doesn't score enough recently to justify): that being said, I've always thought he does possess a little something special, unfortunately he thinks so too... Xhaka is a little too slow to ever boss the midfield and he tends to telegraph his one true strength, his long ball play: although I must admit he did get a bit better during some points in the latter part of last season... it always made me wonder why whenever he played with Coq Wenger always seemed to play Francis in a more advanced role on the pitch... as for Coq, he is way too reckless at the wrong times and has exhibited little offensive prowess yet finds himself in and around the box far too often... let's face it Wenger was ready to throw him in the trash heap when injuries forced him to use Francis and then he had the nerve to act like this was all part of a bigger Wenger constructed plan... he like Ramsey, Xhaka and Elneny don't offer the skills necessary to satisfy the quick transitory nature of our old offensive scheme or the stout defensive mindset needed to protect the defensive zone so that our offensive players can remain aggressive in the final third... on the front end, we have Ozil, a player of immense skill but stunted by his physical demeanor that tends to offend, the fact that he's been played out of position far too many times since arriving and that the players in front of him, minus Sanchez, make little to no sense considering what he has to offer (especially Giroud); just think about the quick counter-attack offence in Real or the space and protection he receives in the German National team's midfield, where teams couldn't afford to focus too heavily on one individual... this player was a passing «specialist» long before he arrived in North London, so only an arrogant or ignorant individual would try to reinvent the wheel and / or not surround such a talent with the necessary components... in regards to Ox, Walcott and Welbeck, although they all possess serious talents I see them in large part as headless chickens who are on the injury table too much, lack the necessary first - touch and / or lack the finishing flair to warrant their inclusion in a regular starting eleven; I would say that, of the 3, Ox showed the most upside once we went to a back 3, but even he became a bit too consumed by his pending contract talks before the season ended and that concerned me a bit... if I had to choose one of those 3 players to stay on it would be Ox due to his potential as a plausible alternative to Bellerin in that wing - back position should we continue to use that formation... in Sanchez, we get one of the most committed skill players we've seen on this squad for some years but that could all change soon, if it hasn't already of course... strangely enough, even he doesn't make sense given the constructs of the original Wenger offensive model because he holds onto the ball too long and he will give the ball up a little too often in the offensive zone... a fact that is largely forgotten due to his infectious energy and the fact that the numbers he has achieved seem to justify the means... finally, and in many ways most crucially, Giroud, there is nothing about this team or the offensive system that Wenger has traditionally employed that would even suggest such a player would make sense as a starter... too slow, too inefficient and way too easily dispossessed... once again, I think he has some special skills and, at times, has showed some world - class qualities but he's lack of mobility is an albatross around the necks of our offence... so when you ask who would be our best starting 11, I don't have a clue because of the 5 or 6 players that truly deserve a place in this side, 1 just arrived, 3 aren't under contract beyond 2018 and the other was just sold to Juve... man, this is theraputic because following this team is like an addiction to heroin without the benefits

Which wise government spending (see: investment in technology and other productivity - enhancing measures) can help that last bit, which is one reason I'm all in favor of spending on alternative energy research (I'm a little sick of sending hundreds of billions of dollars per year overseas for hydrocarbons; I'd rather employ Americans to maintain windfarms, solar plants, not - on - the - table - now - but - maybe - soon thorium reactors, etc.).

The only thing that has kept servers from sucking up ever more energy has been a little known corollary of Moore's law: over the past 65 years, the number of computations that can be done per kilowatt - hour of electricity used has doubled every 1.6 years, according to Koomey's research.

And with U.S. iron ore declining in quality — a drop from as much as 60 percent iron during World War II to as little as 25 percent per metric ton of ore — the energy demand is only increasing.

According to the Geothermal Energy Association (GEA), based in Washington DC, the best sites can generate electricity for as little as 5.5 cents per kilowatt - hour, compared with 8 or 9 cents per kilowatt - hour for natural gas plants.

It was clear that climate change is an energy problem — burning fossil fuels to generate energy accounts for 74 per cent of human - made greenhouse gas emissions — but I could see that it was very difficult to change the energy industry from the outside and very little was happening on the inside.

But adding a little extra energy in the form of electricity might save as much as 10 per cent of the fuel that tractors have to burn to overcome soil friction, according to an American research team.

If your energy expenditure changes significantly on a day - to - day basis, generally by more than about one thousand calories per day, finding your maintenance calorie intake can be a littler trickier.

The caffeine in Go Girl is a little less than most other energy drinks including Red Bull and Monster per ounce.

Our competitor is exhausted, has no energy to train, is eating no carbs, very little fat, and doing 2 - 3 hours of cardio per day, but the scale does not budge.

Towing 8000 pounds, the diesel gets substantially better mileage than the gas counterpart, but lightly loaded, the big diesel gets little, if any better mpg than a gas version, but on fuel that has 13 % more energy per gallon.

Dogs of this size usually need more calories because their daily energy burn is higher — probably something a little closer to 35 or 40 calories per pound of bodyweight.

Re # 332, «yes, that is very true (after reading more data) that its around 5 - 7 GWh per annum per turbine but the bigger they are the larger the space between them and hence the amount of land required yields not more energy (or a little more as the turbines are built higher.»

Well you have to consider that the wind energy is directly related to solar energy and given the average 1/2 acre required for solar power you need a little more ground space for your 10KW Wind Motor (BTW, less then 10 % of the US population is located where there is a possibility of a 12 MPH wind every day for at least 6 hours from which you would need to extract about 36KW per hour.)

Contributing as little as $ 1.95 per month, Blue Sky customers since 2006 have enabled Rocky Mountain Power to install 128 renewable energy projects with a combined capacity of 1.9 billion kilowatt - hours (kWh) across Utah, Wyoming and Idaho as of end September.

The energy intensity of commercial buildings has changed little over this period (total energy use per square foot increased), while a decrease in the energy intensity of housing was offset by an increase in housing size.

Enough of this stupidity, this is the AGWSF Greenhouse Effect energy budget, that «shortwave heats the Earth and no longwave infrared from the Sun plays any part in heating the Earth's land and water», either because it doesn't get through some unknown unexplained silly idea of an invisible barrier like the glass of a greenhouse, as per Arrhenius's getting Fourier wrong, or, as Pekka gives, that the Sun produces very little longwave infrared.

Because so little energy is required to cultivate crops such as switchgrass for cellulosic ethanol production, and because electricity can be co-produced using the residues of such cellulosic fuel production, reductions in greenhouse gas emissions for celluslosic ethanol when compared to gasoline are greater than 100 per cent.

If, for instance, the United States and India are required to reduce ghg emissions by the same percentage amount, for instance 90 %, then the US per capita emissions of approximately 20 tons CO2 per capita would allow US citizens to emit CO2 at the rate of 2 tons per capita while the current India per capita emissions of approximately 1.8 tons per capita would mean that the Indian citizens could emit only at the rate 0.18 tons per capita even though India needs to dramatically increase its energy use to assure that hundreds of millions of people economically rise out of grinding poverty and India has comparatively done little to cause the existing problem.

Yes, those of us in rich countries have a lot of opportunity to reduce our energy use, but I actually think rising per capita energy use, at least in the short term, is a good thing overall because so many people live on so little energy now.

One might therefore conclude that a UHI effect, if found, would be compounded only a little by population change, but more by energy use per person; and that a reconstruction would be difficult because of changes in station location.

More energy means more emissions, so you really need to be efficient and emit little co2 per unit of energy, to reduce emissions.

It is estimated that running the air source heat pump that heats and cools the house will cost $ 325 per year, or as little as zero if the occupants are careful about their energy use and generate more from the photovoltaics on the roof than they use.

For as little as $ 12 per ton of carbon offsets, brides and grooms can make a quick, easy investment in renewable energy by choosing one of three options: helping build new wind power projects, new family farm methane energy projects, or a combination of both.

Turkey's industrial energy consumption could be reduced by 24 per cent and energy demand for residential space heating by over 40 per cent, at little or no extra cost.

In a tight, well insulated home or in mild climates, there is little benefit in spending the extra money for a high - efficiency furnace since the energy saving is only about $ 50 per year.

Energy Star - compliant dishwashers use not only 50 to 75 percent less energy than older models but also less water — as little as 11 litres per full Energy Star - compliant dishwashers use not only 50 to 75 percent less energy than older models but also less water — as little as 11 litres per full energy than older models but also less water — as little as 11 litres per full cycle.