Sentences with phrase «meant coal burned»

That meant coal burned in newer supercritical plants, natural gas, nuclear, tire burning, and existing 50 - year - old hydroelectric plants all counted — and they already made up more than two - thirds of supply.

Not exact matches

And it could mean a future viable source of energy that emits no pollution or radioactivity, burns no fossil fuels, and could be no more expensive to run than conventional coal or electric power plants.

No, I decided that whatever it meant to heap burning coals on someone's head, the image must only be figurative.

In Black Mesa, Arizona, the proposal to construct six large, coal - burning electric plants and three strip mines meant that the health risks of air and water pollution would be suffered by a predominantly native American population, but the power generated would be distributed to distant urban areas.

«To put it in perspective, that means 4 million pounds of coal are not being burned,» Hein said during a press conference at the array site, a former landfill.

«If the impact of these cuts is to mean the U.S. burns gas faster, and then goes back to burning its coal reserves in 2030, arguably it will make the problem worse,» he said.

Even the oil sands ultimate consumption in a gasoline, diesel or jet engine only results in 500 kilograms of CO2 - equivalent per barrel of refined petroleum products, meaning total oil sands emissions from well to wheel are considerably lower than those of this nation's more than 500 power plants burning coal to generate electricity.

«What this means is that we have a resource in farm waste that is readily available, can produce energy at a similar level to burning coal, and does not require any significant start - up costs,» said Dutta.

Meanwhile, China obtains roughly three - quarters of its electricity from coal, meaning the air in Beijing and other cities is thick with sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen dioxide spewed from power plants and coal - burning stoves.

And, even if those targets are met, greenhouse gas pollution may remain: Rising prices for natural gas in the U.S. meant an uptick in coal burning in 2013 — and an attendant 2 percent rise in CO2 from electricity production.

«I agree that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, that greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere are increasing as a result of human activities — primarily burning coal, oil, and natural gas — and that this means the global mean temperature is likely to rise,» Ebell said in the statement released by CEI yesterday.

The UK has switched off many of its older coal plants, and government policy means it is now cheaper to burn gas than coal.

If that electricity comes from burning oil and coal, it might mean that green alternatives aren't that green after all.

Concerns over climate change have encouraged governments and consumers to demand that electricity is decarbonised — which means no more burning of coal and gas wherever possible.

That means, for a coal plant, we'd have to burn — and so pay for — an extra 10 - 40 % more coal with CCS than we would without it, and the electricity from that extra energy / coal consumed is not available to consumers for electricity.

About half of the people in the United States use electricity that is generated using traditional means such as burning coal.

A known carcinogen derived from burning coal, it is a complex mixture of hundreds of compounds, many of which are polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, meaning you breathe them in.

Positive can continue to dominate due to aspects related to psychological handling, and more heat has been shown to increase conflict potential, increased disruptions means increased rebuilding efforts, by all means (using wood and coal for burning if someone lacks technological advancements).

It was then used to power very big and inefficient steam engines that pumped water out of mines; when James Watt developed his steam engine that used 75 percent less coal than the Newcomen engine it replaced, the common thinking was that the increased efficiency meant that they would burn less coal.

Given the facts about global warming, that seems to be exactly what continuing to burn coal will do, as long as we use existing technologies that mean that burning goal contributes to, and will accelerate, climate change.

The long lifetime of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and the long lifetime of sources like coal - burning power plants once built, mean that the «faucet» for CO2 is getting cranked open just when it should be going in the opposite direction.

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.

Of course, the situation would be very different if coal - burning utilities all had cleansers or other means to strip carbon dioxide from their emissions.

Because it specifies the capture of emissions from coal burning and one can only hope that it will also mean a reduction in mercury and soot and other exotic substances which I think pose a greater threat than the CO2 per se.

The World Health Organization estimates that preventable deaths from air pollution, meaning soot and smog from burning wood, coal, oil and gasoline, total more than two million per year worldwide.

An important question that political and climate analysts will be examining is how much bite is in the regulations — meaning how much they would curb emissions beyond what's already happening to cut power plant carbon dioxide thanks to the natural gas boom, the shutdown of old coal - burning plants because of impending mercury - cutting rules (read the valuable Union of Concerned Scientists «Ripe for Retirement» report for more on this), improved energy efficiency and state mandates developing renewable electricity supplies.

This means that, since the share of coal in the power mix will remain steady, the actual volume of coal that Japan burns could increase by around 30 % over the next 15 years.

U.S. coal peaked a few years ago in terms of BTU (heat value) per pound — meaning that we need to burn more coal for the same amount of heat / electricity.

Primarily this means carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide generated by driving motor vehicles and burning coal, oil and gas to generate electricity,...

That has a clear implication for our fossil fuel consumption, meaning that humans can not burn all of the coal, oil and gas reserves that countries and companies possess.

Mitigating the environmental costs of digging up and burning coal thus means digging up and burning even more coal.»

Coal - burning in China means we're all doomed — if the alarmists have their way.

I mean, how did these past hyper warmings occur without SUV's, concrete manufacturing, coal burning, and domestic cattle farts?

That means that humans need to burn all available oil and a lot of coal to reach such quantities.

The consumption of fossil fuels is really by means such as burning coal or oil to generate electricity, or using oil products as automotive fuels.

So China built many hundreds of coal plants in the last 15 years, and they lead the world in fossil fuel burned and CO2 emissions (accounting for 30 % of total world emissions), but this does not mean that the increase in capacity in China even correlates with fossil fuel burned?

An assertion that you make that can not be arrived at by any means, given that coal is burned, and the CO2E is treated as Commons, though it is a scarce, rivalrous, excludable resource.

The recent recession has also left emissions permits undersold, meaning there's room, under the EU limit, to burn more coal or gas overall.

China may in fact be able to develop shale gas on a big scale and that means they burn a lot less coal.

But growing concern about killer smogs has triggered new controls that mean many coal - burning power plants in China have been mothballed.

He said: «If we mean to burn all the coal and any appreciable percentage of the tar sands, or other unconventional oil and gas then we're cooked.

More electricity means more coal and natural gas burning, which, according to green dogma, means more greenhouse gas emissions and global warming.

This means it will turn coal into a mixture of hydrogen and carbon dioxide, burning the hydrogen to generate power and capturing the carbon for storage.

... Yes, we'll continue to have to burn coal, but it doesn't mean you have to increase that coal burning by that much.

well not really climate change officially now means human caused climate change due to the extra CO2 put in the air from among other things humans burning coal and oil in order to stay alive and live effectively.

If we can get another megawatt - hour of electricity out of every tonne of coal we burn, that means we need burn less coal to get the same amount of electricity.

That means seeking what the treaty calls a «balance» between sources of carbon like the burning of coal, oil and natural gas, and its absorption from the atmosphere by forest growth, or, possibly, techniques like capturing emissions of CO2 and burying them in the ground.

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.

And that meant Illinois was burning more coal and natural gas.

On average, American coal plants are only 37.4 percent efficient, meaning that nearly two - thirds of the coal burned is not converted to electricity.