Sentences with phrase «much less fossil fuels»

Western Europe with much less fossil fuel use than ever before, produces 50 % of its electricity from nuclear reactors and could provide the stimulus for others to re-instigate their nuclear production.

What is real is that there is that much less fossil fuel available for future generations to enjoy in the manner in which our short span of «civilised» life has been able to.

Not exact matches

The current rate of burning fossil fuels adds about 2 ppm per year to the atmosphere, so that getting from the current level to 1000 ppm would take about 300 years — and 1000 ppm is still less than what most plants would prefer, and much less than either the nasa or the Navy limit for human beings.

Obviously this will also be a greatly reduced trade, requiring far less fossil fuel and contributing much less to the Greenhouse Effect.

The transition from deeply rooted energy systems based on burning fossil fuels to new norms emitting ever less of this gas — here and in China — is seen by many as requiring a sustained energy quest including much greater direct government investment on the frontiers of relevant technologies (batteries, photovoltaics, superconductivity, photosynthesis).]

The energy storage density in these solutions is much less than fossil fuels and with what energy source do you manufacture the H2?

Humans had not evolved, much less developed fossil fuels, to cause these changes.

If only that much people (one out of ten) could manage to have a really decent life, yet, with (and historically only once was) «easy» fossil fuel energy source available, is it reasonable to expect that 10 times more people will manage to do so in future without that exceptional source of energy and much less «easy» renewable energy sources?

Both solutions are emitting much less greenhouse gases than fossil fuels.

What is needed, more than ever before, is administrative leadership that goes to instruct societies of humans to depend much less on fossil - fuels, and make way for renewable energy alternatives.

Pretty much the same rate it was rising before man figured out how to use fossil fuels to make his life less miserable with the Industrial Revolution.

I am all for making fossil fuels cleaner, and much work has already been done to make various fossil fuel devices (coal - fired power stations, internal combustion engines, etc) emit less pollution like NOx, SOx, Hg, Pb, and particulates.

The current rate of burning fossil fuels adds about 2 ppm per year to the atmosphere, so that getting from the current level to 1000 ppm would take about 300 years — and 1000 ppm is still less than what most plants would prefer, and much less than either the nasa or the Navy limit for human beings.»

Fossil fuel sources remain much less costly than the infrastructure necessary for capturing the sun's energy.

So the issues are very much broader than the trillions of taxpayer and ratepayer dollars which the states are being forced to devote to the misguided effort to tear down fossil fuel plants and replace them with much more expensive and much less reliable wind and solar plants which will have no measurable impact on climate or anything else other than the profits of the solar / wind industries.

By contrast, despite spending over $ 2 trillion in 5 decades, aid programs have much less to show in terms of poverty reduction — or its ancillary benefits, e.g., reductions in hunger, disease, better health care and education, and greater adaptive capacity to deal with climate change and natural disasters — than does fossil fuel - powered economic development.

Because there would be no connection between how much a person pays in fees and the size of the rebate, there would be a strong incentive to use less fossil fuel in order to keep more of that money.

Annual water requirements of a PHES - supported 100 % renewable electricity grid would be much less than the current fossil fuel system, because wind and PV do not require cooling water.

Finally, it should be noted that socioeconomic hypotheses associated with the lower emission trajectories (such as the one commented upon by Tim Worstall) imply a greatly increased use of nuclear and fossil fuels, especially cooal and natural gas, and the share of renewable sources reaching much less than the «80 %» claimed by the recent «renewable energy» IPCC report.

And it dries much faster, which means you'll be burning less fossil fuels on laundry day.

And you also knew, for example, that that an average gas driven car emitted 4.7 tons of carbon dioxide per year and an electric car would cut that in half even when powered from the current polluting grid, and much much less on a life cycle basis from a future global efficient renewable energy system displacing almost all fossil fuels.

This technology is expected to become commercially competitive and generate much less greenhouse gases compared to fossil fuels.

He argued that using Canadian tar sands — which he called some of the «dirtiest oil on the planet» — would «make it much less likely for human civilization to succeed in meeting» that goal of leaving oil and other fossil fuels untapped.

The price of petrol and diesel will become much higher and, wherever possible, there will be a shift to other, less fossil fuel - intensive, modes of transport, including rail and sea.

Despite decades of persistent uncertainty over how sensitive the climate system is to increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels, we now have new satellite evidence which strongly suggests that the climate system is much less sensitive than is claimed by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Non-hydro «renewable» electrical energy is also more expensive to produce from a system viewpoint than most fossil fuel energy; non-hydro «renewable» sources have a much shorter useful life and operate for much less of each year at much less of their rated capacity.

Even Joe Romm, who excoriated the New York Times for giving Dyson's crackpot musings such wide exposure, did not question Dyson's integrity, much less suggest that he might be in the pay of fossil fuel interests.

How much stock fossil fuel companies and their financiers are putting in those warnings remains much less clear cut.

After all, the UK is a flood prone island not that much less economically dependent on fossil fuels than the US.

If the government was to recognise that change away from fossil fuels must come, if it was to accept that change and encourage it rather than resisting it, the transition would come with much less pain: environmental, emotional and financial.

Each of those assessments attempts to account for all the greenhouse gases emitted during the production and installation of solar cells, as well as how much energy solar cells produce — and, therefore, how much less carbon is emitted when switching from fossil fuels.

Since much RE now costs the same or less than coal, oil their real cost is Zero or even profitable and far less costly as fossil fuel costs rise..

We shouldn't need any gas or other fossil fuel plants, new or existing, in much less than 50 years from now.

Nuclear is way down the list, though it has much less CO2 emissions than fossil fuels.

RealClimate is wonderful, and an excellent source of reliable information.As I've said before, methane is an extremely dangerous component to global warming.Comment # 20 is correct.There is a sharp melting point to frozen methane.A huge increase in the release of methane could happen within the next 50 years.At what point in the Earth's temperature rise and the rise of co2 would a huge methane melt occur?No one has answered that definitive issue.If I ask you all at what point would huge amounts of extra methane start melting, i.e at what temperature rise of the ocean near the Artic methane ice deposits would the methane melt, or at what point in the rise of co2 concentrations in the atmosphere would the methane melt, I believe that no one could currently tell me the actual answer as to where the sharp melting point exists.Of course, once that tipping point has been reached, and billions of tons of methane outgass from what had been locked stores of methane, locked away for an eternity, it is exactly the same as the burning of stored fossil fuels which have been stored for an eternity as well.And even though methane does not have as long a life as co2, while it is around in the air it can cause other tipping points, i.e. permafrost melting, to arrive much sooner.I will reiterate what I've said before on this and other sites.Methane is a hugely underreported, underestimated risk.How about RealClimate attempts to model exactly what would happen to other tipping points, such as the melting permafrost, if indeed a huge increase in the melting of the methal hydrate ice WERE to occur within the next 50 years.My amateur guess is that the huge, albeit temporary, increase in methane over even three or four decades might push other relevent tipping points to arrive much, much, sooner than they normally would, thereby vastly incresing negative feedback mechanisms.We KNOW that quick, huge, changes occured in the Earth's climate in the past.See other relevent posts in the past from Realclimate.Climate often does not change slowly, but undergoes huge, quick, changes periodically, due to negative feedbacks accumulating, and tipping the climate to a quick change.Why should the danger from huge potential methane releases be vievwed with any less trepidation?

Green stuff is growing better, all over the world, using less water, and much of that is due to the use of fossil fuel.

«The judicial branch is much less influenced by special interests such as the fossil fuel industry,» Hansen told The Atlantic in 2012.

Harvard's decision comes less than a week after the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) sounded the alarm for immediate action on climate change and the necessity for keeping much of known fossil fuel reserves in the ground, a reality that will affect investments in fossil fuels.

Perhaps he has discovered that it is much less costly to operate than heating and cooling with fossil fuels and electricity?

While it may be true, more or less, that the global «fossil fuel energy share has remained stable for more than three decades despite the growth in renewable energy...», it's not going to remain so much longer.

, much less has been paid to the supply side: «how do we rein in production of fossil fuels that the climate can't afford?».