Sentences with phrase «of alternative energy because»

So we thought of alternative energy because, as I said, it was a hot topic today.

Not exact matches

The company is continuing to look at alternatives but is making the cut because the proposal by the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission will have a «profound impact» if adopted, said Nathan Brown, president of TC PipeLines» general partner.

It's a good alternative to having a coffee latte because matcha gives you a slow release of energy for 4 - 6 hours rather than the rush of energy (followed by a crash) that you tend to get with coffee.

This is an incredibly difficult question to answer for a variety of reasons, most importantly because over the years our once vaunted «beautiful» style of play has become a shadow of it's former self, only to be replaced by a less than stellar «plug and play» mentality where players play out of position and adjustments / substitutions are rarely forthcoming before the 75th minute... if you look at our current players, very few would make sense in the traditional Wengerian system... at present, we don't have the personnel to move the ball quickly from deep - lying position, efficient one touch midfielders that can make the necessary through balls or the disciplined and pacey forwards to stretch defences into wide positions, without the aid of the backs coming up into the final 3rd, so that we can attack the defensive lanes in the same clinical fashion we did years ago... on this current squad, we have only 1 central defender on staf, Mustafi, who seems to have any prowess in the offensive zone or who can even pass two zones through so that we can advance play quickly out of our own end (I have seen some inklings that suggest Holding might have some offensive qualities but too early to tell)... unfortunately Mustafi has a tendency to get himself in trouble when he gets overly aggressive on the ball... from our backs out wide, we've seen pace from the likes of Bellerin and Gibbs and the spirited albeit offensively stunted play of Monreal, but none of these players possess the skill - set required in the offensive zone for the new Wenger scheme which requires deft touches, timely runs to the baseline and consistent crossing, especially when Giroud was playing and his ratio of scored goals per clear chances was relatively low (better last year though)... obviously I like Bellerin's future prospects, as you can't teach pace, but I do worry that he regressed last season, which was obvious to Wenger because there was no way he would have used Ox as the right side wing - back so often knowing that Barcelona could come calling in the off - season, if he thought otherwise... as for our midfielders, not a single one, minus the more confident Xhaka I watched played for the Swiss national team a couple years ago, who truly makes sense under the traditional Wenger model... Ramsey holds onto the ball too long, gives the ball away cheaply far too often and abandons his defensive responsibilities on a regular basis (doesn't score enough recently to justify): that being said, I've always thought he does possess a little something special, unfortunately he thinks so too... Xhaka is a little too slow to ever boss the midfield and he tends to telegraph his one true strength, his long ball play: although I must admit he did get a bit better during some points in the latter part of last season... it always made me wonder why whenever he played with Coq Wenger always seemed to play Francis in a more advanced role on the pitch... as for Coq, he is way too reckless at the wrong times and has exhibited little offensive prowess yet finds himself in and around the box far too often... let's face it Wenger was ready to throw him in the trash heap when injuries forced him to use Francis and then he had the nerve to act like this was all part of a bigger Wenger constructed plan... he like Ramsey, Xhaka and Elneny don't offer the skills necessary to satisfy the quick transitory nature of our old offensive scheme or the stout defensive mindset needed to protect the defensive zone so that our offensive players can remain aggressive in the final third... on the front end, we have Ozil, a player of immense skill but stunted by his physical demeanor that tends to offend, the fact that he's been played out of position far too many times since arriving and that the players in front of him, minus Sanchez, make little to no sense considering what he has to offer (especially Giroud); just think about the quick counter-attack offence in Real or the space and protection he receives in the German National team's midfield, where teams couldn't afford to focus too heavily on one individual... this player was a passing «specialist» long before he arrived in North London, so only an arrogant or ignorant individual would try to reinvent the wheel and / or not surround such a talent with the necessary components... in regards to Ox, Walcott and Welbeck, although they all possess serious talents I see them in large part as headless chickens who are on the injury table too much, lack the necessary first - touch and / or lack the finishing flair to warrant their inclusion in a regular starting eleven; I would say that, of the 3, Ox showed the most upside once we went to a back 3, but even he became a bit too consumed by his pending contract talks before the season ended and that concerned me a bit... if I had to choose one of those 3 players to stay on it would be Ox due to his potential as a plausible alternative to Bellerin in that wing - back position should we continue to use that formation... in Sanchez, we get one of the most committed skill players we've seen on this squad for some years but that could all change soon, if it hasn't already of course... strangely enough, even he doesn't make sense given the constructs of the original Wenger offensive model because he holds onto the ball too long and he will give the ball up a little too often in the offensive zone... a fact that is largely forgotten due to his infectious energy and the fact that the numbers he has achieved seem to justify the means... finally, and in many ways most crucially, Giroud, there is nothing about this team or the offensive system that Wenger has traditionally employed that would even suggest such a player would make sense as a starter... too slow, too inefficient and way too easily dispossessed... once again, I think he has some special skills and, at times, has showed some world - class qualities but he's lack of mobility is an albatross around the necks of our offence... so when you ask who would be our best starting 11, I don't have a clue because of the 5 or 6 players that truly deserve a place in this side, 1 just arrived, 3 aren't under contract beyond 2018 and the other was just sold to Juve... man, this is theraputic because following this team is like an addiction to heroin without the benefits

The search for economically viable alternatives to fossil fuels has attracted attention among energy communities because of increasing energy prices and climate change.

Keeping in mind the enormous stake that panel members ExxonMobil and Shell have in the oil, natural gas and coal industries, here is a look at the panel's take on why oil and coal have been so difficult to replace by the following alternative energy sources: Natural gas ExxonMobil favors boosting the U.S.'s consumption of natural gas, in part, because it produces at least 50 percent less greenhouse gas per hour when burned compared with coal, Nazeer Bhore, ExxonMobil senior technology advisor, said during the panel.

While we are disappointed with DOE's decision to exclude Holtec from the award, we remain confident that our reactor, the SMR - 160, has the greatest potential to triumph in a global marketplace because it is designed to meet the highest expectations of safety and is uniquely engineered to compete economically with other sources of alternative energy in the evolving era of cheap fossil fuels.

Because I don't know enough science to debate contrarians scientifically, I usually fall back on: Suppose the mainstream climate scientists are wrong & the contrarians right, and we act as if the scientists are right, then we have nothing to lose & something to gain in terms of reducing other environmental harms (acid rain, local pollution), resource depletion, and increasing national security (re oil wars & protection), and lots of money to save from energy / resource efficiency & conservation, and increasing from alternative energy.

This could be because the use of energy is compromised in the brains of people with Huntington's and urea is produced as the damaged brain tries to find alternative energy sources.

Most people are chronically dehydrated, because of the large assortment of beverage alternatives that can actually dehydrate your body even more, including soda and energy drinks.

What lies on the other side of the flu is excellent news for anyone looking to ditch the jiggle because the best alternative energy source for the newly adjusted body is its fat stores.

Cardio exercise is ideal because once any available calories from food or drink have quickly been used up, to help power your body through your workout, the body is forced to look for alternative energy sources, which just so happen to come in the form of stored body fat.

Because when a caloric deficit is created, your body will be forced to burn your own stored body fat as an alternative source of energy.

(In the spirit of using less stuff, a bicycle and in - line skates have been selected because they are energy - efficient alternative modes of transportation!)

MLP investment opportunities tend to be in the energy sector because 90 % of the income generated by an MLP must come from exploration, mining, extraction, refining of oil and gas and the transportation of alternative fuels like biodiesel.

And that's because ALTERNATIVE ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES RELY ON FOSSIL FUELS THROUGH EVERY STAGE OF THEIR LIFE.

The fact that existing wind farms shut down because of inadequate transmission capacity is not news to those of us actually involved in alternative energy - it's been widely known for years.

I know some here will decry that I am not talking about the issues because I do not try to obsfuscate with a discussion of the spot market price of coal vs long - term contracts, or use of coal in locations other than Kansas, or Al Gore's footprint, but the issue of Global Warming IS politics (non-ratification of Kyoto and negative flag - waving ads about politicians who oppose coal), it IS public relations («Clean Coal», cleanest coal - fired plants, surface mining and mountain - top reoval rather than strip mining, etc.), and it IS about misrepresentation (Peobody framing the debate as coal vs NG when it is really coal vs every other energy source), and it IS about greed (the coal industry doing everything it can to scuttle every other energy alternative).

Because I advocated for a careful risk analysis of the probabilities associated with global warming models and projections he immediately casts me as someone who has no interest in conservation or alternative energy sources.

One alternative that's been under development at Michigan State University for years is picking up momentum, in large part because of $ 2.5 million in seed money as part of the stimulus spending from the Advanced Research Projects Agency, Energy, in 2009.

Because I don't know enough science to debate contrarians scientifically, I usually fall back on: Suppose the mainstream climate scientists are wrong & the contrarians right, and we act as if the scientists are right, then we have nothing to lose & something to gain in terms of reducing other environmental harms (acid rain, local pollution), resource depletion, and increasing national security (re oil wars & protection), and lots of money to save from energy / resource efficiency & conservation, and increasing from alternative energy.

Spain is economically suffering big time because of subsidizing alternative energy sources because of trying to curb CO2 emissions.

So, since governments fleeing from further alternative energy subsidies [probably mostly cause they can't afford it - rather than any sensible reason] we will see a global reduction of CO2 emission because this.

The public has known for decades of the link between burning fossil fuels and global warming, yet society has continued to use oil and natural gas because there are still no alternatives that match their low - cost, their energy density, and their dispatchability.

That's because there are no scalable alternative fuels or technologies available today capable of taking the place of fossil fuels and offering society what those energy sources provide.

Because of a growing interest in renewable energy and the increasingly competitive prices of alternative energy sources, solar power has received a lot of attention over the past several years.

And no, that's not because the Environmentalists will have got their way, but because we will have found a new, improved alternatives for generating energy by then, despite the efforts of Environmentalists.

I call it Project Zero — because its aims are a zero - carbon - energy system; the production of machines, products and services with zero marginal costs; and the reduction of necessary work time as close as possible to zero... If I am right, the logical focus for supporters of postcapitalism is to build alternatives within the system; to use governmental power in a radical and disruptive way; and to direct all actions towards the transition — not the defence of random elements of the old system.

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2014/05/19%20low%20carbon%20future%20wind%20solar%20power%20frank/net%20benefits%20final.pdf «As shown in Tables 2A and 2B, among the no - carbon energy alternatives, nuclear plants avoid the most emissions per MW of new capacity, simply because nuclear plants have far and away the highest capacity factor.

This is important because they, and not Aussies or pixies, will have to supply most of the alternative energy trash we are obliged to use.

Corp of Engineers has had to spill excess water so that the local PUD's could meet the alternative energy quota and buy wind, wasting an abundantly available and cheap resource, because somehow the Obama administration doesn't consider Hydro as alternative / clean energy.

As energy guru Daniel Yergin noted, wind energy isn't an «alternative» energy source anymore because there are now over 45,000 megawatts of installed wind capacity, providing three percent of our energy mix.

The plentiful, affordable and dependable supply of U.S. natural gas, coupled with the fuel's environmental advantages, makes it a logical alternative, because it achieves what were once thought to be mutually exclusive goals: providing more energy with a smaller impact on our environment.

Today, in part because of the Green Belt Movement's own work, we understand much more completely the linkage between deforestation and energy access, about how a lack of alternatives to wood fuel for heating or cooking can drive forest destruction and increase communities» vulnerabilities to the effects of global warming and famine.

Most of us would choose clean affordable alternatives to fossil fuels for energy and transportation, but many of us can't because the fossil fuel industry systematically thwarts them.

Because all of the costs have not been accounted for, coal projects like Eskom have been unfairly favored, which means that there has never been a real consideration of alternatives, such as wind, solar and other alternative energy sources.»

«With another decade of «business - as - usual» it becomes impractical to achieve the «alternative scenario» because of the energy infrastructure that would be in place,» says Hansen.

The oil companies had no reason to play down the AGW myth: I know because I met with some of them way back in the 90s at an «alternative energy» conference.

The $ 45 million a year campaign positions coal as an indispensable component of the nation's energy mix — one that keeps electricity affordable because it is so much cheaper than alternatives.

It is not really about the US at all, but about the way in which alternative energy sources are affecting (upwards) the price of electricity, and is therefore directly relevant to we who live Down Under, because the same elements apply.

With the energy sector showing signs of profound, disruptive change, and with the former chairman of Duke Energy arguing that a price on carbon is inevitable, investors are rightly spooked by the prospect of a carbon bubble — whereby fossil fuel assets become stranded because they either can't be exploited due to climate concerns, or clean energy alternatives simply squeeze them out of the marketenergy sector showing signs of profound, disruptive change, and with the former chairman of Duke Energy arguing that a price on carbon is inevitable, investors are rightly spooked by the prospect of a carbon bubble — whereby fossil fuel assets become stranded because they either can't be exploited due to climate concerns, or clean energy alternatives simply squeeze them out of the marketEnergy arguing that a price on carbon is inevitable, investors are rightly spooked by the prospect of a carbon bubble — whereby fossil fuel assets become stranded because they either can't be exploited due to climate concerns, or clean energy alternatives simply squeeze them out of the marketenergy alternatives simply squeeze them out of the marketplace.

If burning coal and petrol in current ways becomes more expensive because of the damage they do to the environment, people will find ways to get energy out of alternative fuels or methods.

It is because so little energy is being used, and because alternatives are ruled out ab initio (the model contains no nuclear power, and no technology for storing away carbon emissions from fossil fuels; natural gas prices rise strongly and coal plants are retired well before they are clapped out) that the model ends up with such a high percentage of renewables; indeed given the premise it's slightly surprising it doesn't end up with even more.

It's unclear exactly what percentage of that fleet is required to be alternative fuel vehicles because some agencies are exempt from the purchasing requirements of the 1992 energy law.

Lithium - air batteries excite alternative energy fans because they can store up to ten times the energy of today's lithium - ion batteries, an energy density similar to that of gasoline.

The question of a new tax or fee being included in a climate bill has been a controversial issue because many Republicans have long dismissed climate control legislation as nothing more than a new tax on consumers, who would face higher energy prices when more expensive alternative energy like wind and solar power replace dirty - burning coal and oil.

Industry participants across the spectrum of renewable energy alternatives come to Blakes because of our notable successes and our unrivalled experience handling the unique legal and regulatory issues they face.

The mining proceeds, then, can serve as «an alternative store of value,» making it «an environmental subsidy to alternative energy all around the world because it's causing [renewable energy projects] to be amortized over a year instead of five.»