Sentences with phrase «out of fossil fuel power»

8) Phase - out of fossil fuel power.

Not exact matches

Jenkins wrote on Twitter that Germany's shift in energy policy was misguided and resulted effectively in fossil fuels replacing much of the missing nuclear power — a pattern that's playing out at home, as well.

Britain's last coal power station will be forced to close in 2025, as part of a government plan to phase out the fossil fuel to meet its climate change commitments.

The shift away from pure fossil - fuel engines has been so fast that 2017 sales of cars using some form of electric battery power topped out at 52 percent, according to the Norwegian Road Federation (OFV).

And giving a helping hand to all these other crises as a result of all the fossil fuel burning needed to power our lives and lift billions out of poverty: anthropogenic climate change.

CCS has been slow to take off, but dozens of projects are underway, including numerous pilots in the Great Plains, many of which pump CO2 from fossil fuel power plants into dwindling wells to drive out residual oil.

OSLO (Reuters)- World powers are running out of time to slash their use of high - polluting fossil fuels and stay below agreed limits on global warming, a draft U.N. study to be approved this week shows.

Other algorithms — including one that scans for certain pore shapes using techniques derived from facial - recognition software — then seek out the best candidates for absorbing carbon dioxide from the flues of fossil - fuel power plants.

But, as Hansen wrote in an additional assessment of his new analysis, «Environmentalists need to recognize that attempts to force all - renewable policies on all of the world will only assure that fossil fuels continue to reign for base - load electric power, making it unlikely that abundant affordable power will exist and implausible that fossil fuels will be phased out.»

But as Kurt E. Yeager, former president of the Electric Power Research Institute in Palo Alto, Calif., points out, such standards «aren't worth the paper they're written on until we have a power system, a grid, that is capable of assimilating that intermittent energy without having to build large quantities of backup power, fossil - fueled, to enable it.&rPower Research Institute in Palo Alto, Calif., points out, such standards «aren't worth the paper they're written on until we have a power system, a grid, that is capable of assimilating that intermittent energy without having to build large quantities of backup power, fossil - fueled, to enable it.&rpower system, a grid, that is capable of assimilating that intermittent energy without having to build large quantities of backup power, fossil - fueled, to enable it.&rpower, fossil - fueled, to enable it.»

Because with China and India poised to put tens of millions of new fossil - fuel - powered cars on the road, the stuff coming out of all those exhausts is going to make it hard to see the top of the hill.

In 1997, Tickell set out on the road with a biodiesel powered «Veggie Van» and a video camera and began filming what would eventually become known as FUEL, the 2008 Sundance Audience Award winning documentary film that investigates the possible replacement of fossil fuels with renewable energy.

March 13, 12:43 p.m. Relevant tweets appended A group of scientists and energy analysts has laid out a path under which New York State could, in theory, eliminate its use of fossil fuels and nuclear power — including for transportation — by 2050.

Nader said, «We do not need nuclear power... We have a far greater amount of fossil fuels in this country than we're owning up to... the tar sands... oil out of shale... methane in coal beds...» Sierra Club consultant Amory Lovins said, «Coal can fill the real gaps in our fuel economy with only a temporary and modest (less than twofold at peak) expansion of mining.»

To achieve these reductions they propose phasing out coal - fired power stations by 2030 and scaling down the use of unconventional fossil fuels like tar sands.

With the additional fossil fuel reserves we've figured out how to exploit, we have some more time, unless we devolve backwards into the low energy societies of wind and sun power of the 19th century.

Nuclear defenders are calling for keeping things in perspective — fossil fuels, they point out, have many more costs and risks associated with them than nuclear power; and newer generation reactor designs are far safer than those built in Japan many decades ago (a number of US plants from the same era have the same or similar designs).

Solar and wind are too diffuse and not reliable enough to power factories and cities, and thus can not lift people out of poverty nor reduce emissions from fossil fuel - powered electrical systems more than only modestly.

For example, fossil fuels may have been used to supply power to the phone factory and then to transport the phone to the retailer and then if I drove out to the mall to buy it... well as you can imagine calculating the carbon footprint of an action can be challenging, but just being able to make informed decisions when choosing one activity over another is what's really important.For example, I knew that sending a text message would be greener than driving across town to share my news.

President Trump campaigned on «bringing back coal» and has attempted to follow up on this promise by thwarting the Clean Power Plan and pulling out of the Paris Agreement in an attempt to keep fossil fuels up and running.

Unfortunately for the fossil fuel industry, natural gas only reduces pollution by 55 % (compared to coal) at the power plant, and only by 17 % (compared to gasoline) out of car tailpipes.

The fossil fuel energy it would take to make sure we had power when the wind wasn't blowing (345 days out of 365) or the sun wasn't shining (5 out of 365) and between sunset and sunrise (most days since I was born) would consume more fossil fuels to make it work than if just fossil fuels were relied upon at those times.

In the case of Germany, where nuclear power is being phased out and fossil fuels are taboo because of plans to decarbonize, the only option may be to accept periods without electricity putting a civilized nation back centuries.

The bad news is that according to Chancellor Merkel, 10 — 20 GW of new fossil fuel power plants need to be built in order to facilitate the nuclear phase - out.

D. Phasing out fossil fuels would amount to a policy of mass poverty for the American people, unless America turns to nuclear power, which is opposed by the same extremists who oppose fossil fuels.

Thus from a logical and scientific standpoint, Germany should first phase - out the use of more dangerous and environmentally damaging fossil fuels before pursuing a phase - out of nuclear power.

• Kyoto Protocol • EU ETS • Australian CO2 tax and ETS • Mandating and heavily subsidising ($ / TWh delivered) renewable energy • Masses of inappropriate regulations that have inhibited the development of nuclear power, made it perhaps five times more expensive now than it should be, slowed its development, slowed its roll out, caused global CO2 emissions to be 10 % to 20 % higher now than they would otherwise have been, meaning we are on a much slower trajectory to reduce emissions than we would be and, most importantly, we are locked in to fossil fuel electricity generation that causes 10 to 100 times more fatalities per TWh than would be the case if we allowed nuclear to develop (or perhaps 1000 times according to this: http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html • Making building regulations that effectively prevent people from selling, refurbishing or updating their houses if they are close to sea level (the damage to property values and to property owners» life savings is enormous as many examples in Australia are already demonstrating.

Matt Lucky points out that while people view CCS as a way to produce greener power while prolonging the supply of fossil fuels like coal, that's not the current reality anywhere in the world.

I am convinced that the real hope of sustainability lies in getting every Exxon / Shell / racist / misogynist / fat / lazy fossil fuel funded politician worldwide out of any kind of power position they have lied their way into.

«All countries should aim for a global phase - out of unabated fossil fuel power generation by 2050.

To get there, the goal of our Climate and Energy program is reform that prioritizes energy efficiency and conservation, phases out fossil fuels, and embraces environmentally appropriate clean power sources.

Which I worked out from first principles from the amount of fossil fuels burnt and then converted to a unit power flux.

Both developments undermine a principle argument for pricey, land - intensive, intermittent wind and solar power: that we are running out of «fossil fuels.»

At Earth Ministry / Washington Interfaith Power and Light, we are so grateful for our members who are speaking out against the burning of fossil fuels and standing up for climate action, and happy to support their efforts to care for God's creation.

Along with representatives from the Environmental Defence Fund and the Prince of Wales» Corporate Leaders Group, Agency experts detailed how increased energy efficiency, phasing out least - efficient coal - fired power plants, investing more in renewables, ending fossil - fuel subsidies and cutting methane emissions can limit global warming to 2 degrees Celsius.

You might like to ponder what has changed since I wrote a letter on 16 Feb 1979 quoting the Chairman of the U.K. Central Electricity Generating Board, Mr R England, who wrote ``... the only proven way in which the predicted shortage of fossil fuels can be counterbalanced in the field of electricity generation is by increasing out investment in nuclear power... In view of the drawbacks involved, the CEGB is not carrying out any work of its own on harnessing solar energy... it is too early to say whether geothermal energy is feasible, or what the likely cost would be...»

Ultimately, the Commission is seeking a global phase - out of unabated fossil fuel power generation by 2050.

As we have pointed out just once or twice — the need for 100 % of wind power capacity to be backed up 100 % of the time by fossil fuel generation sources means that wind power can not and will never reduce CO2 emissions in the electricity sector (see our posts here and here and here and here and here and here and here).

First, I have a piece coming out soon in the National Interest, arguing that 2011 marked a watershed in the development of energy sources to replace fossil fuels, with nuclear power finally ceasing to be a relevant option, and solar PV finally becoming a serious contender.

In fact, if humankind was really as dumb as the fans of DPS would have us believe, we wouldn't be around today to hear their doomsaying, because Homo sapiens would have been wiped out during vastly larger environmental swings (in and out of ice ages, for example) in our past, than those expected as a consequence of the burning of fossil fuels to produce the energy that powers our world — a world in which the human life expectancy, perhaps the best measure of our level of «dumbness» or «smartness» — has more than doubled over the last century and continues to grow ever longer.

In three out of the four scenarios, carbon capture an storage (CCS) plays a crucial role in helping China develop within a carbon budget... By 2050, CCS will have to be installed to 80 - 90 % of fossil fuelled power plants in scenarios S3 and S4.

The first item is the plea on page 13 to Soviet - style manipulation of the marketplace, namely, to tax fossil fuels out of existence so that solar and wind could become competitive; moreover to put these piddle - power sources «on an equal footing with nuclear.»

In addition to being used to simply produce cyclic carbonates, North believes it could also be retrofitted on coal - fired plants: «If our catalyst could be employed at the source of high - concentration CO2 production, for example in the exhaust stream of a fossil - fuel power station, we could take out the carbon dioxide, turn it into a commercially - valuable product and at the same time eliminate the need to store waste CO2.»

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.

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.

Apparently a food calorie often uses more fossil fuel than the equivalent electric energy needed to power you the same distance on a bike — partly because you need more energy to go one miles due to inefficiencies in your body getting motive force out of the calories than an electric system does, even if you take into account the generation and transportation losses of the electrical power.

If you are still forced to buy supplemental power from them when the wind is not blowing (not a true free market situation) then the savings realized with the windmills will be wiped out by the increased cost of the fossil fuel power.

Writer Craig Morris credits Lovins, and specifically this article, with the inspiration for Germany's Energiewende (Energy Turn or Transition), the national policy of advancing energy efficiency and renewable energy and phasing out first nuclear and later fossil fuel power.

«Being opposed to nuclear power, as [Richard] Rhodes points out [in the film], means being in favor of burning fossil fuel.