Sentences with phrase «mostly by coal»

And most recently, ELPC made headlines insisting that the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency was incorrect in claiming Illinois nuclear plants would be replaced «mostly by coal.»

Traditional grids invented by Thomas Edison draw supplies from a handful of generators fueled mostly by coal, nuclear and natural gas plants, which can run around the clock.

In a new article today in Energy and Environment Daily reports that the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) assumes nuclear plants would be replaced mostly by coal:

These communities, once powered mostly by coal, are benefiting from increased tax revenue, job creation, and rural economic development.

A study of greenhouse gas - emissions by the Advanced Power and Energy Program at the University of California at Irvine shows fuel - cell vehicles running on hydrogen derived from natural gas ultimately create far less GHG emissions than BEVs running off the U.S. grid, which is powered mostly by coal and natural gas.

Not exact matches

This is largely as a result of the bitcoin network being mostly fueled by coal - fired power plants in China.

I criticized this statement, noting that the actual emissions from U.S. coal - burning power plants declined only from 16.1 million tons to 12.4 million tons between 1980 and 1998 in the case of sulfur dioxide and from 6.1 million tons to 5.4 million tons between 1980 and 1998 in the case of nitrogen oxides (mostly emitted as NO, not NO2, but by convention measured as tons of NO2 - equivalent).

Instead, it will be powered by PacifiCorp., which depends mostly on coal and natural gas for generation.

Alberta is phasing out all pollution from coal - fired electricity generation (6,300 MW) by 2030 and renewable energy — mostly wind — will replace two thirds of it with renewable energy; expected to drive development of at least 4,000 MW of new wind energy capacity.

If I understand the above calculation correctly, it would seem that, in the electricity sector, we could mostly concentrate on meeting additional demand with efficiency and carbon neutral generation (and avoid some of the fights associated with replacing existing coal generation plants); but if we need to reduce emissions by 80 % by 2050, then I am not sure whether this makes sense.

Third, the recent paper by Samset et al in GRL found that the loss of the cooling anthropogenic aerosols (primarily sulphates) emitted with fossil fuels combustion (mostly from coal and bunker fuels) would result in a near real - time warming of 0.5 C to 1.1 C.

If we should have luck here in Germany, and the EEG does not fail, it would mean that in 20 years we'd have a grid mostly powered by renewable energy, paid by the private households alone, that will produce cheap electricity for the industry at a time when oil, gas and coal will be much more expansive than today.

For instance, falling US emissions are being driven mostly by cheap natural gas displacing coal — something that may happen elsewhere.

There it is, easily accessible to him, for it is piped into his laboratory for lighting, an industrial gas, mostly methane produced by heating coal.

In India, the third - largest coal consumer in the world, coal - fired power generation increased by 3.3 % in 2015, which is considerably lower than the 11 % growth of 2014, mostly due to lower demand growth.»

By installing a large PV solar nameplate capacity, using the need to pay off this (subsidized) investment as the rationale for approved rate increases, and then selling us (mostly) the cheaper electricity they make from coal and uranium, they actually increase the profitability of coal and uranium more than PV solar.

BRANCACCIO:... the Information Council on the Environment, funded by the Western Fuels Association, which mostly represents coal interests.

if Clinton and Quad Cities were retired, all of the 25 million megawatt - hours they produce annually would be replaced by generation from other sources, mostly coal, that would belch millions of tons of CO2.

Peabody Energy, the world's largest private coal company, has filed for bankruptcy (although coal's problems are due mostly to fracking for natural gas, which by some measures is as bad as coal).

Here's the basic version: About 3 billion people around the world — mostly in Africa and Asia, and mostly very poor — still cook and heat their homes by burning coal, charcoal, dung, wood, or plant residue in their homes.

As Massachusetts has been shuttering its coal - fired power plants, that back - up power has mostly been supplied by natural gas, raising the price of electricity as cold weather forces different sectors to compete for natural gas.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/apps/g/page/world/as-appetite-for-electricity-soars-the-world-keeps-turning-to-coal/1842/ «[T] wo - thirds of the world's electricity is still produced by burning fossil fuels, mostly coal — a proportion that hasn't budged for 35 years.

«It will not affect the international coal market in any way,» German climate economist Reimund Schwarze tells Pacific Standard via email, explaining that the CPP rules targeted mostly inferior, high - emissions coal in a market that's already been depressed by cheap oil and gas prices.

Since the wind - generated electricity mostly replaced coal, we can say that this would have reduced greenhouse gas emissions from electrical generation by roughly 3.4 million tonnes.

Yes, the Passive House in the Woods home is powered by electricity; and yes, electricity is predominantly a dirty fuel in this country — mostly generated by burning coal.

Beginning in 2002, Soon's funding mostly came from oil companies, including Southern Co, one of the largest coal burners in the United States, and the American Petroleum Institute, according to documents uncovered in a Freedom of Information Act request by Greenpeace and seen by Reuters.

Given that nearly all the major US coal companies are now bankrupt, and that coal - fired electricity is declining rapidly, I'd have expected a lot of «wrecking ball» pieces on the supposed damage to the economy (in reality, the effects are small and mostly offset by the expansion of renewables) now that mitigation policies of various kinds are taking effect.

Soon, who says global warming is mostly caused by changes in the Sun, not emissions from burning oil, gas and coal, has written some peer - reviewed studies on global climate change.

It would have a small effect on electricity from a grid that is mostly nuclear and renewables (like France) but have a large effect on electricity from a grid like Australia's that is generated by 70 % coal and 20 % natural gas.

BHP and Rio have been cutting back plans for coal expansion because of declining demand and outlook for coal, caused mostly by a reassessment of China's appetite for imports.

Aerosols can cool the climate by reflecting solar energy back out to space before it has a chance to be absorbed and re-emitted as infrared radition by the Earth's surface, and also warm the climate by absorbing extra energy in the lower atmosphere (coming mostly from incompletely burnt carbon from coal - fired power stations and dung braziers).

Illinois's power plants have reduced their carbon dioxide emissions by 3 percent between 2005 and 2012, mostly by using more natural gas and renewables and less coal.

The people who felt most keenly the reduction in sulphur dioxide emissions — down by 77,400 tonnes — from coal - fired plant were mostly in the Great Lakes, Northeast, Mid-Atlantic and Texas regions.

It is staying ahead mostly by building hydro, and in the tropics that releases a lot of methane (and displaces people and destroys habitats), in some cases so much that it's «dirtier» than coal, so being renewable isn't much of a plus if you're worried about GHG emissions.