Sentences with phrase «new natural gas plants as»

One option is to return to the agency's approach in its original 2012 proposal, in which it pointed to new natural gas plants as the basis for its standard.

Not exact matches

NEW YORK, April 1 - FirstEnergy Corp said late on Saturday its nuclear and coal power plant units filed for bankruptcy court protection as the company looks to restructure, sell assets and win government support to cope with competitors using lower - cost natural gas.

Newer SAGD plants such as Connacher Oil and Gas's Great Divide have managed to nearly eliminate fresh water use — they use non-potable water from aquifers and recycle it — and reduce GHG emissions by about 20 % compared to the industry average through more efficient burning of natural gas, cogeneration of electricity and reduced heat loss on the steam's journey undergrouGas's Great Divide have managed to nearly eliminate fresh water use — they use non-potable water from aquifers and recycle it — and reduce GHG emissions by about 20 % compared to the industry average through more efficient burning of natural gas, cogeneration of electricity and reduced heat loss on the steam's journey undergrougas, cogeneration of electricity and reduced heat loss on the steam's journey underground.

A halt to the Millennium pipeline feeding the CPV power plant could send a message that not only does New York ban extraction, but the state is also clamping down on the use of natural gas from beyond its borders in favor of renewables such as wind or solar.

The state Public Service Commission has pursued a contingency plan to replace Indian Point's 2,000 megawatts of clean power with new transmission lines as well as plants fired with natural gas.

«Reducing carbon pollution from electric power plants is a good start, but the goal must be phasing out coal, oil, and natural gas as our energy sources,» said Howie Hawkins, Green candidate for Governor of New York (http://www.howiehawkins.org).

The subpoena also seeks information about the administration's interactions with the Millennium pipeline company, which will connect the CPV plant to a natural gas pipeline network as well as the New York Power Authority's actions taken to connect the power plant to the grid.

Those existing ports include Abbot Point, where India's Adani Group and compatriot GVK plan a huge coal terminal expansion, and Gladstone, where ship traffic is set to increase sharply from 2015 as huge new liquefied natural gas plants start exports.

Coal - powered synthetic natural gas plants being planned in China would produce seven times more greenhouse gas emissions than conventional natural gas plants, and use up to 100 times the water as shale gas production, according to a new study by Duke University researchers.

Coal - powered synthetic natural gas plants being planned in China would produce seven times more greenhouse gas emissions than conventional natural gas plants, and use up to 100 times the water as shale gas production, according to a new study.

The «well - to - wire» research showed new natural - gas power plants are responsible for less than half as much greenhouse gas per kilowatt hour of electricity generated as existing coal power plants.

China Energy News, a state - run newspaper, cited a policymaker Monday as saying that China will complete the construction of approved coal - to - natural - gas plants but will not approve new projects until 2020, aiming to keep its coal - based synthetic natural gas production capacity to 15 billion cubic meters at the end of the decade.

Does it makes sense to replace old coal - fired power plants with new natural gas power plants today, as a bridge to a longer - term transition toward near zero - emission energy generation technologies such as solar, wind, or nuclear power?

As rumored, EPA will require that all new natural gas - fired plants emit no more than 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt - hour, and coal plants no more than 1,100 pounds per megawatt - hour.

New coal plants cost three to four times as much as they did three years ago, due to the embedded cost of petroleum and natural gas in plant construction, materials and labor.

The NRDC cites the «2016 State of the Market» report by PJM, the largest grid operator in North America, as showing that «new entrant natural gas - fired combined cycle plants, combustion turbine plants, and solar are economical, but that new coal and nuclear plants are not.»

In such an environment, natural gas might seem like an obvious choice, and in fact the German Green Party is on record as favoring new gas plants over increased coal generation.

Few new coal plants are being built in the United States anyway, as utilities increasingly favor cheaper, cleaner, and newly abundant natural gas.

Costs of generating electricity from coal and natural gas are rising as renewables penetrate the market and fossil fuel plants run less, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance.

So it's puzzling to hear about a recent effort in New York to block expansion of an Upstate natural gas storage plant in the name of a «climate emergency,» as one activist put it — puzzling because natural gas is doing more to reduce U.S. emissions than any other fuel.

As the owners of older coal plants consider whether to retire them or upgrade them to meet new and emerging environmental standards, the threat of greenhouse gas regulation will be an overlay of uncertainty and possible large expense, on top of the burdens imposed by other new and proposed environmental regulations and the competition from natural gas.

Instead of doing this, why don't we simply fix the broken permit process for new nuclear plants and give modest tax incentives to industries or individuals that implement «no regrets» initiatives to reduce CO2, such as: — replace new coal - fired power plants with nuclear or natural gas (where a gas supply exists)-- replace newnormal automobiles with hybrids — replace Diesel for new heavy transport with natural gas — install energy savings initiatives (waste recycling, better building insulation, etc..)

Further, BCG found that lower electricity and natural gas fuel costs are «beginning to drive investments such as new iron and steel plants and plastics processing.»

If coal and lignite (as well as more expensive natural gas) prevail as next - generation heating fuels, then co-generation will be included into the new plants to increase overall revenues from the same thermal energy.

Marcellus Shale production is helping the Commonwealth to lower carbon emissions with $ 10.5 billion worth of new power natural gas - fired power plant investments, and as this latest study shows — those benefits aren't even close to being cancelled out by methane emissions from record production.

-- expand drilling / fracking to extract as much domestic energy as possible, — use clean natural gas, where possible, to replace dirtier coal and for heavy transportation vehicles; — support basic research efforts aimed at finding economically viable green energy technologies; — at the same time, install new nuclear power generation capacity in place of new coal plants, wherever this makes economic sense.

New coal and nuclear generation can not compete with «the very low price of natural gas and the efficiency of new natural gas plants,» as well as the declining price of renewable enerNew coal and nuclear generation can not compete with «the very low price of natural gas and the efficiency of new natural gas plants,» as well as the declining price of renewable enernew natural gas plants,» as well as the declining price of renewable energy.

The short version is that electricity from new natural gas plants costs about half as much as coal, and that's at gas prices approaching five dollars... two - and - a-half times the current price!

As a result of the above factors, Bridges sees a shift of more new power plants switching to natural gas.

Future projections suggest the cost of natural gas, simply as a fuel (not including the cost of installing new power plants), is likely to reach the $ 30 - $ 40 / MWh range by 2020.

Today, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) released a new analysis, which shows that instead of aggressive over-reliance on natural gas by utilities as they phase out coal plants, a far better bet for achieving a clean energy future is to greatly expand the use of renewable energy and energy efficiency.

Replacing nuclear with natural gas would require $ 23 billion as up - front investment in new plants and $ 10 billion per year to pay for gas imports.

Even as they write blog posts claiming to oppose replacing nuclear plants with fossil fuels, the Sierra Club, NRDC and EDF are all supporting the replacement of Indian Point in New York, Diablo Canyon in California, and nuclear plants in Ohio, with natural gas.

Hemmed in by higher cost alternatives like mandating C02 sequestration for all new coal - fired plants or instituting a low enough carbon cap, they'll not be able support an effective climate management package if they are prevented from framing their support for it as a reasonable trade - off, given that natural gas will be a low - cost, clean, sustainable energy alternative.

The costs involved in building new power plants; such as coal, natural gas, or nuclear, are incredibly high.

As if on cue, last week the US company DTE Energy won approval to build a new $ 1 billion natural gas power plant that was vehemently opposed by clean power stakeholders.