Sentences with phrase «more nuclear electricity»

At best, maybe we'll see much more nuclear electricity generation, and reduced oil dependance.

Not exact matches

We will trust ourselves more to build our own cars, transform our subsistence farming to profitable and industrial agriculture, and even build nuclear power plants to generate electricity.

The technical advantage is that local generation eliminates the enormous losses of wasted heat and long transmission that consume more than half the energy used in electricity generation by fossil fuels or nuclear.

Power plants that depend on natural gas can make electricity more cheaply than nuclear plants.

After the nuclear disaster at the Fukushima Daiichi plant in Japan, Germany adopted a policy of phasing out nuclear energy by 2022 and ensuring that 80 percent of the country's electricity supply comes from clean energy by 2050, or more than three times the level of 2010.

The sentence marked with an asterisk was changed from «In fact, fly ash — a by - product from burning coal for power — and other coal waste contains up to 100 times more radiation than nuclear waste» to «In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant — a by - product from burning coal for electricity — carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy.»

THE world added more solar capacity in 2017 than all new coal, gas and nuclear electricity - generating plants combined.

With more wind power, new nuclear plants, carbon capture and storage, and increased efficiency, electricity industry group says significant greenhouse gas reductions possible

The Obama administration would like to see more nuclear power plants, among other forms of new electricity generation

Despite long - standing public concern about the safety of nuclear energy, more and more people are realizing that it may be the most environmentally friendly way to generate large amounts of electricity.

A much tidier solution is a nuclear power source, which is far more compact and delivers a steady flow of electricity, regardless of its distance from the sun.

«Hopefully, OLEDs will become better — use less electricity and produce more light — because we learned here how nuclear spins» orientation influences how well the OLED works,» Boehme says.

The world added more solar capacity in 2017 than all new coal, gas and nuclear electricity - generating plants combined.

In large swathes of the U.S., where more electricity comes from coal and natural gas than nuclear or renewables, that is a harder claim.

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).

Today's nuclear power plants use the heat from uranium fission reactions to do nothing more complicated than boil water, making pressurized steam that spins turbines to generate electricity.

The M.I.T. report predicts that even if the world's fleet of more than 400 nuclear power plants grew to be 4,000 such plants that then operated for a century, the cost of the electricity from those facilities would rise by a mere 1 percent as a result of the increased demand for uranium.

However, as the UK has shifted focus from coal - and oil - fired electricity generation to being more reliant on natural gas as the fuel of choice (irrespective of wind, solar, nuclear and other alternatives), this makes the electricity grid somewhat vulnerable to accidental and incidental problems with the flow of data and to malicious manipulation for the sake of sabotage, criminal or online military / terrorist action.

The French get more than three - quarters of their electricity from nuclear power, the largest share of any country in the world.

Nuclear energy accounts for roughly 20 percent of U.S. electricity generation and more than 11 percent of electricity worldwide.

More than 10 countries derive at least a third of their electricity from nuclear power; France gets more than three - quartMore than 10 countries derive at least a third of their electricity from nuclear power; France gets more than three - quartmore than three - quarters.

Worldwide, by the end of 2004, these supposedly inadeqaute alternatives had more installed capacity than nuclear, produced 92 percent as much electricity, and were growing 5.9 times faster and accelerating, while nuclear was fading.»

This would generate at least a hundred times more electricity from used nuclear fuel and decrease the long - term radiotoxicity of the remaining wastes.

«For more than 50 years GE has been at the forefront of energy innovation and nuclear technology and GE Hitachi's PRISM reactor offers an attractive solution to tackling the UK's plutonium management challenges while generating clean electricity,» said Mark Elborne, President and CEO of GE UK & Ireland.

Using the nuclear energy in the fuel assemblies, these facilities produce more than 2.5 trillion kilowatts of electricity each year.

Once units 3 and 4 join the existing two Vogtle units already in operation, Plant Vogtle is expected to generate more electricity than any other U.S. nuclear facility, enough to power more than 1 million homes and businesses.

If / when oil gets over $ 100 / barrel and stays there, a combination of coal, nuclear, solar and wind will be used to generate electricity, and electric cars will become more common.

I myself have been accused of being a paid shill for the coal industry, because I argued that rapidly deploying solar and wind energy technologies, along with efficiency and smart grid technologies, is a much faster and much more cost effective way of reducing GHG emissions from electricity generation than building new nuclear power plants.

The right way is to promote more emission - free nuclear power and encourage the investments necessary to produce electricity from coal without releasing carbon into the air.

Yet more evidence that the world has vast commercially - exploitable wind and solar energy resources, that are more than sufficient to produce more than enough electricity for all current uses, plus the electrification of ground transport, without fossil fuels or nuclear power.

I am not an expert, just an ordinary citizen who has followed energy issues for 40 years; but for what it's worth, I think that nuclear and coal - with - CCS are neither necessary (since we can get all the electricity we need, and more, from renewables) nor effective (since nuclear will take too long to build up to the point where it makes any significant contribution, and working CCS doesn't exist and is unlikely to exist for decades).

In the Maryland suburbs of Washington DC, I buy 100 % wind - generated electricity through PEPCO Energy Services, and it is only slightly more expensive than PEPCO's «standard service» which is about 57 % coal, 35 % nuclear, 5 % natural gas, and 1 % oil.

The amount of primary energy consumed in nuclear power is more than is delivered as electricity.

And again, my position is that (1) nuclear power is not needed, since we can get all the electricity we need, and more, from renewables; (2) nuclear can not possibly be expanded enough, quickly enough to have any significant impact on reducing GHG emissions in the time frame that's needed, while renewables can be (and already are); and (3) resources invested in expanding nuclear power would be far more effectively invested in renewables and / or efficiency, and the opportunity costs of nuclear therefore mean that putting resources into nuclear power hinders rather than helps the effort to quickly reduce CO2 emissions from generating electricity.

Ramping up a massive effort to replace electricity generation with solar and nuclear, for example, will take decades and cost far more than most people realize.

According to Paul Waide, a senior policy analyst with the IEA and one of the report's authors, «19 % of global electricity generation is taken for lighting — that's more than is produced by hydro or nuclear stations, and about the same that's produced from natural gas.»

Even if energy conservation were pursued more aggressively in the state (a perennial opportunity), scratching off New York natural gas and nuclear power would clearly lead to more reliance on coal - generated electricity (or gas extracted in other states unlikely to have the safeguards that are inevitable in environment - minded New York).

-- China in 2012 increased electricity output more from non-hydro renewables than from all fossil - fueled and nuclear sources, and in 2013, added more PV capacity than the US had added since it invented PVs in 1954.

Using natural gas could both hasten the return to coal for domestic heating and electricity, as well as help push Canada toward building more nuclear power plants.

Both these countries make more electricity from windpower than from nuclear power.

There is wide agreement among scientists that inadequate funds are going to basic research in such fields as capturing carbon dioxide from smokestacks or the atmosphere, advancing photovoltaic cells and other solar power systems, finding ways to store large amounts of electricity from intermittent sources like wind or the sun, and making nuclear power more secure.

So nuclear generation is not as safe and it is more expensive than it would have been if it had been allowed to compete and develop on an equal footing with other electricity generation technologies.

The 2016 version of Stacy and Taylor's report similarly claimed ``... electricity from new wind and solar power is 2.5 to 5 times more expensive than electricity from existing coal and nuclear power.»

``... electricity from new wind and solar power is 2.5 to 5 times more expensive than electricity from existing coal and nuclear power.»

That's a ratio of about 20 % of nameplate capacity for nuclear, or more probably around 40 % by carbon - free electricity supplied.

Tennessee uses hydroelectric power with coal and nuclear power to keep the lights on for its residents, who use more electricity per capita than any other state, according to the NRDC.

Of the country's 6,000 coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear, wind, and solar electric - generating facilities, a small sub-group of mostly coal - fired power generators produces more than its share of the nation's carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions compared with the electricity it produces, the report found.

«Our study shows that on average, electricity from new wind resources is nearly four times more expensive than from existing nuclear and nearly three times more expensive than from existing coal,» according to a summary of Stacy and Taylor's 2015 report found on IER's website.

When asked for the evidence that nuclear is more dangerous than other ways to make electricity, Beauchamp said, «We're not too far from Fukushima.»

You'd also know that weather - dependent renewables can not supply much of global electricity, let alone global energy and they are far more expensive than nuclear to provide reliable power (which is an essential requirement).