Sentences with phrase «much oil and coal»

Not exact matches

Estimates vary widely on just how much methane is leaked from the vast network of oil and gas wells, pipelines and processing plants, but the problem has cast doubt on how much better natural gas is than coal for the environment.

«We are hopeful that the premier's efforts to allow the voices of his citizens to be listened to will be successful, because it is very much in common with our citizens,» Inslee said, adding that residents in his state recently rejected proposals for both coal and oil ports.

The country is rich in oil, gas, coal, tin, copper, silver, and gold, plus conveniently placed much closer to China and India than many other commodities sources.

President Trump's decision on Thursday to enact new tariffs on steel and aluminum could break his promise to protect the coal miners he adores so much, leaving everything from oil pipelines to wind turbines vulnerable to foreign retaliation.

The GED per kWh for natural gas is 20 to 30 times lower than for oil and coal, respectively, because its (non-carbon) emissions are so much lower (Table 5).

For the time being, much of the analysis on the financial losses focuses on the plunge in oil and coal prices, and the potential that a huge portion of the global reserves of oil, gas, and coal will be «stranded» in the ground to curb climate change.

None of Churchill's defiant speeches would have done much good against a triumphant Stalin or Hitler, in control of the whole European continent, the oil of Baku, the wheatfields of Ukraine, and the coal and iron of Germany, France, and Scandinavia.

I guess I feel the same way about a liberal agenda that say that to get out of debt we have to spend more, or that my tax dollars have to pay for something I think is morally wrong (Obamacare sets up a fund to pay for late term abortions) or a government that confiscates kids lunches, or tells me how much soda I can drink, or uses my tax money to choose winners and losers (mostly losers but Obma doners) in energy production that produces no energy yet we are sitting on more coal and oil than any other nation on the planet.

Much of this energy still comes from the burning of fossil fuels like oil, coal and natural gas, which release carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere and contribute to extreme weather patterns that imperil everyone on earth — especially our food producers.

So I'm wondering how many of these are in the oil, coal and gas business, and how much do they spend on their lobbying?

ROBERT LAUGHLIN, a Nobel laureate for his work in quantum physics, starts his study of our energy futures with an absurd proposition — that it doesn't matter much whether we burn all our coal and oil or leave it underground.

«There's about as much carbon in permafrost as there is in coal, oil and natural gas put together,» said James White, a geological sciences professor at the University of Colorado, Boulder.

The Carbon Tracker Initiative — led by James Leaton, an environmentalist who served as an adviser at the accounting giant PricewaterhouseCoopers — combed through proprietary databases to figure out how much oil, gas and coal the world's major energy companies hold in reserve.

The outcome depends on how much more carbon dioxide, a main greenhouse gas, human activities (such as burning coal and oil) dump into the atmosphere.

Oil and gas companies in New Mexico produce as much climate pollution as approximately 12 coal - fired power plants.

But there can be too much of a good thing: In the last 200 years, humans have added a lot of extra carbon dioxide to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas to produce energy.

Biofuels can also cause a much smaller net release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than fossil fuels such as coal and oil.

Overall, I have yet to see anyone rebut the simple calculations of Vaclav Smil, the resource and risk polymath at the University of Manitoba, who has shown how capturing and processing just a small percentage of today's CO2 from coal combustion would require as much pipeline and other infrastructure as is now used globally to get oil — a costly commodity — out of the ground.

South Africa is much poorer than Saudi Arabia, and coal is more vulnerable to climate policy than oil, given its higher carbon content and the greater availability of alternatives.

The US has pretty much ceded the renewable energy sector to China, while we insist on a combination of a 20th century (oil) and 19th century (coal) energy infrastructure.

Although there were a few, very few, voices in the wilderness telling of future problems from the CO 2, we know that the Fords and the Rockafellers were pretty much just plain stupid about the problems oil and coal would produce in this world.

When the coal, oil and uranium use up, this tecnology will no meaning, but in order to develop this technology, people will use much energy and financial, we should ask us is it worth?

Because make fuel from CO2 means to continue to dig coal and oil and use huge amount of energy from nuclear, these make this idea lose advantage much.

Think how much we could achieve if every homeowner in this country converted from oil / coal / gas heat to solar and / or wind power.

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.

But how much more can be accomplished administratively is unclear, which is why the prese ce of a clear and present signal that raises the cost of emitting carbon (starting from where oil, gas, and coal are dug up) is so important to cover all the bases.

There's just too much inertia in coal and oil and too much incentive to make sure all of it comes out of the ground.

The ocean, with around 38,000 gigatons (Gt) of carbon (1 gigaton = 1 billion tons), contains 16 times as much carbon as the terrestrial biosphere, that is all plant and the underlying soils on our planet, and around 60 times as much as the pre-industrial atmosphere, i.e., at a time before people began to drastically alter the atmospheric CO2 content by the increased burning of coal, oil and gas.

A molecule of CO2 from coal, in a certain sense, is different from one from oil or gas, because in the case of oil and gas, it doesn't matter too much when you burn it, because a good fraction of it's going to stay there 500 years anyway.

In the meantime, how do you personally weigh the costs of changing from unfettered burning of the fuels of convenience — coal and oil — which have created so much wealth, for the sake of limiting future risks?

Their critics say their stance, however well intentioned, will produce the real delays, given how much can be done now simply by cutting energy waste with tools already on the shelf — ranging from strengthening efficiency standards to eliminating billions of dollars in persistent fossil - fuel subsidies that continue to make coal and oil much cheaper than they really are when all their hidden costs are revealed.

The way to decrease emission from oil is to increase miles - per - gallon standards for light vehicles and eventually to electrify light vehicle transportation while at the same time shifting away from coal to produce electricity to sources with much lower emissions (gas, wind, nuclear).

Consider just how much commercial cred fracked gas & oil had 10 yrs ago, and then look at the current worldwide research efforts both on methane hydrates» extraction and also on coal - seam gasification.

«How do you personally weigh the costs of changing from unfettered burning of the fuels of convenience — coal and oil — which have created so much wealth, for the sake of limiting future risks?»

That is we have to end all mining of any more coal, all pumping of any more oil, and all fracking (or otherwise extracting) of any more NG, and we have to stop all this massive UN-sequestration of otherwise - safely - buried carbon as quickly as possible if not much, much sooner.

Second, if divestment were to reduce the financial resources of coal, oil, and gas companies (which it would NOT do), this would only reduce research and development at those same companies of: carbon capture and storage technologies; other key technological breakthroughs; and renewable sources of energy (the fossil fuel companies are carrying out much of the R&D on renewables).

Two fossil fuel facts define the basic actions that are required to preserve our planet's climate: (1) it is impractical to capture CO2 as it is emitted by vehicles (the mass of emitted CO2 is about three times larger than the mass of fuel in the tank), and (2) there is much more CO2 contained in coal and unconventional fossil fuels than in oil and gas.

But there was a much discussed recommendation in both his oral presentation and a written statement he prepared beforehand: that the heads of oil and coal companies who knowingly delayed action on curbing greenhouse gas emissions were committing a crime.

Although in and of itself, as Revkin points out, this won't really reduce greenhouse gas emissions as long as so much of our electricity is generated by burning coal, it is at least a doable step in the right direction that reduces our reliance on oil from antagonistic regimes.

Natural gas is much more emissions efficient than oil and coal.

Oil is a much smaller contributor to CO2 emissions than coal, and if its users switch from petrol to diesel (eg double the km / litre) and from fuel oil to gassification etc its contribution to GHG will diminish still furthOil is a much smaller contributor to CO2 emissions than coal, and if its users switch from petrol to diesel (eg double the km / litre) and from fuel oil to gassification etc its contribution to GHG will diminish still furthoil to gassification etc its contribution to GHG will diminish still further.

Coal and oil won't lose money, but we will have to pay much more for it because a protection racket is getting into the game.

If the United States starts weaning off of oil and coal and onto homegrown biofuels, renewables, nuclear and other options, how much land will be gobbled up by new forms of energy production?

But even much higher supplies of wind power would improve security only marginally, because the U.K. would still have to import just as much oil (wind replaces mostly coal, rarely oil) and much of its gas, leaving it dependent on Russia.

Once coal and oil became king these regions regained much of the earlier forest acreage.

Much of the infrastructure and other investment could be (fairly) easily switched to «carbon - neutral» products: biowaste (e.g. azolla) for coal, bio-methane for natural gas, and cyanobacterial oil for petroleum.

With this data, it is possible to calculate a rough approximation of how much CO2 will be created by each kilogram of CO2 captured from a CCS coal plant, and used to enhance oil recovery.

Much of Montana's past wealth and prosperity was built on exploitation of its abundant natural resources, from copper and timber in the west to coal and grazing lands in the east to oil and gas on the Rocky Mountain Front.

We've already mined out much of the coal that's really easy to dig up (Britain had massive reserves in the nineteenth century), and oil is increasingly being sought in expensive locations like the deep sea and Arctic.

The cost of fossil fuels is pretty much the cost of the coal, oil and gas, although, of course, there are infrastructure costs, but a reasonable estimate (and Eli is the most reasonable bunny you could ever meet, as a colleague just wrote, reasonably insane perhaps, but reasonable nonetheless).