Sentences with phrase «nuclear power generation while»

Not exact matches

While Cuomo has seized upon every hiccup at the Indian Point nuclear plant downstate to amplify his calls for its closure, he has touted the benefits of the FitzPatrick plant and other upstate nuclear power generation.

While nuclear reactors do not emit carbon dioxide at the point of power generation, the nuclear fuel chain is responsible for carbon emissions during mining, milling, enriching, construction, transportation, and decommissioning.

While there are obstacles to scaling up nuclear power, and any generation source, Southern Company is taking appropriate actions to address them.

For example, if nuclear is providing 20 % of electric generation, it can be run at steady baseline, maximizing fuel efficiency, while all the other variable demand can be met with solar and wind based power that has been fed into storage systems during the peak periods.

Through administrative moves, he has indicated that he sees the need to responsibly exploit the state's enormous gas resource while moving toward ending nuclear power generation near New York City and its suburbs.

For example, while bioenergy could be used across all sectors, nuclear energy is limited to the power generation segment.

The share of renewables in electricity generation reached a record level of 17 %, while the share of nuclear power held steady at 20 %.

While every market is unique, it is clear that wind energy can compete on cost with virtually all forms of new electricity generation, including nuclear, hydroelectric, and coal - fired power.

As of 2012, nuclear accounted for 26 percent of the total generating capacity, according to energy ministry data, though it typically accounts for about a third of power generation, while only making up about 3 - 4 percent of energy costs.

For comparison, new nuclear will, it's claimed, cost # 99 per megawatt hour, while new coal - and gas - power generation will cost an estimated # 105 — 115 per MWh, with carbon capture and storage attached.

It says by 2050 renewables could provide almost 40 % of primary energy supply and 48 % of power generation; nuclear 24 %; while fossil plants with CCS only 17 % - the rest are unabated.

Worldwide, nuclear power generation actually declined in 2008 while wind electric generating capacity increased by 27,000 megawatts, enough to supply 8 million American homes.

While the need for nuclear power is absolutely critical in meeting our base load requirements (and reducing CO2 emissions, and reducing fuel risk by having a diversified generation portfolio of power plants)-- peaking load and generation options to meet this load (which solar currently fits into) is important also.

For the UK to be on track to achieve the emission reductions required by the Climate Change Act, it would have to become as carbon efficient as France by about 2015; which magnitudinous challenge would require the equivalent of the UK constructing and putting into service about 30 new nuclear power stations in the next five years, while retiring an equal amount of coal - fired generation!

The most water - efficient energy sources are natural gas (though we may be just about out of it) and synthetic fuels produced by coal gasification; the least efficient are ethanol and biodiesel — the biofuels just can't catch a break these days, can they?Water use winners and losers The research pair analyzed 11 types of energy sources, including coal, fuel ethanol, natural gas, and oil; and five power generating methods, including hydroelectric, fossil fuel thermoelectric, and nuclear methods; in terms of power generation, Younos and Hill have found that geothermal and hydroelectric energy types use the least amount of water, while nuclear plants use the most.

In terms of power generation, they found that geothermal and hydroelectric energy use the least amount of water, while nuclear plants use the most.

I am aware of people making the argument that the big push by the nuclear industry for enormous government subsidies to find a massive expansion of nuclear power on the basis that nuclear power is «THE ANSWER» to global warming is a fraud that dishonestly and cynically takes advantage of growing concern about the very real problem of global warming, and I make that argument myself (because even a quite large expansion of nuclear electricity generation would have little effect on overall GHG emissions, at great cost, taking too long to achieve even that little effect, while misdirecting resources that could more effectively be applied elsewhere).

But, unlike those environmentalists in wealthy countries who denounce the modern world while enjoying its blessings, the ecomodernists recognize that, though with today's technology it is impossible to lift the world's poorest out of poverty without destroying the environment, with the technologies of the future — next - generation nuclear and solar power, carbon capture and storage, high - intensity agriculture and aquaculture, and others — all things are possible.

Repeated studies around the world have shown that wind energy does not directly cause these harms [i]; while no form of electricity generation is free of adverse effects, wind power is relatively benign compared to coal, nuclear, heavy petroleum, major dams, etc. [ii] Nor has harm been proven in countries, such as Denmark and Germany, which have a dense network of turbines and a high level of wind energy generation.