Sentences with phrase «plant fossils do»

Not exact matches

While this company's bond did not directly invest in increasing fossil fuel output, refineries are still processing fossil fuels and any investment in making refineries more efficient, as this bond is aiming to, will likely extend plant operating lifetimes and therefore indirectly increase emissions over time.

And this is what he does here, very well, proceeding by discrete steps: the observable plasticity of plant and animal species, the verifiability of macro-evolution, the geological record of the earth's age, the fossil evidence (including the wealth of fossil remains of intermediate special forms), observable and experimental mutation, morphology, genetics, and so forth.

Unless, of course, there was a major disaster that rapidly buried all sorts of plant and animal life under extreme pressure, in which case science would allow for fossil fuels to develop in such a circu.mstance (as evidenced in the Mt. St Helens eruption)... but said disaster never occured in the bible, did it?

Multiplied over a plant over a year, this output can and does add up to millions of dollars saved on fossil fuels, says Mr Bambridge.

Herbivore coprolites are rare in the fossil record because a diet of leaves and other green plant material doesn't leave a lot of hard material to preserve (unlike bones in carnivore dung).

After all, once operating, nuclear power plants burn nothing and therefore emit no carbon dioxide as fossil fuel — burning power plants do.

What in effect, we would be doing is displacing 300 oil - fired power plants and another 300 coal - fired power plants; so the land required for 600 fossil fuel power plants — if you are going to think that way, if you consider the whole system, which includes mining coal, which includes drilling for oil, the refining of all that, it's not just the power plant — that the land tradeoff actually gets to be fairly close, you know, the solar power plant is the footprint of the solar power and that's it.

Actually if you calculate, you think about those 600 fossil fuel power plants, and if you calculate how much money is spent to purchase the fuel, that's the big thing that people don't really think about.

Spores from such plants, which aren't limited to permanently damp environments and therefore may have turned down Earth's thermostat even more than nonvascular plants did, show up in the fossil record about 450 million years ago.

Unfortunately, the earliest fossils are just spores and don't reveal much about what sort of plants they came from.

Everyone knows fossil fuels come from long - dead plants, but Jeffrey Dukes wanted real numbers: How much plant matter does it take to make a gallon of gasoline?

However, certain beetles are known to pollinate plants as well, and new fossil evidence indicates that they were doing so 20 million years ago.

Fossil bones don't clearly show whether modern - type birds fluttered about during the Cretaceous, but the treads in Shandong do, painting an improbable scene: Animals much like today's roadrunners were in fact scampering beside two - legged, plant - eating dinosaurs.

The fossil find, an ancient relative of today's bleeding hearts, poses a new puzzle in the study of plant evolution: did Earth's dominant group of flowering plants evolve along with its distinctive pollen?

The Stanford scientists suggested roofs covered in photovoltaic panels would do a better job, by producing electricity that then obviates the need for more fossil fuel — burning power plants.

I did go to your reference, «Plant fossils of West Virginia» by Monte Hieb.

Our seas will need to have tens of thousands to these wind turbines deployed at several per week to do the job in time and only shallow offshore is viable at the present time and that is inline with existing baseload fossil fuel coal and gas fired power plants along with existing nuclear ones to.

There is no need for these societies to repeat the disaster of the western world's 19th century fossil - fueled industrial revolution, nor is there any possibility of them doing so, given that they can afford neither the cost of the fossil fuels nor the cost of building electric grids to distribute power from large, centralized power plants.

Similarly, when a fossil fuel burning power plant dumps carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, its owners don't pay for the resulting climate disruption.

Nevermind that as currently operated, wind farms do virtually nothing to reduce the need for fossil fuel power plants.

Regardless of how well renewables are or are not doing, the point Rob and I are trying to make is that fossil infrastructure is still expanding in a big way: the total committed emissions represented by power plants is growing even faster than annual emissions.

The major other advantage of CDR from fossil fuel plant cleanup is that air capture can be done anywhere and thus where the carbon can be both removed, used, and sequestered with the use even making the sequestration profitable.

They assumed a functioning lifetime of 40 years for a fossil fuel plant and then did the sums.

However, while displacing all fossil fuel power plants with solar and wind farms is necessary in curbing the flow of additional greenhouse gases into our atmosphere, it does nothing to capture the prevailing stock of greenhouse gases that has already accumulated.

Understanding the significance of this last fact relies on the appreciation that displacing all fossil fuel power plants with solar and wind farms, while necessary in curbing the flow of additional greenhouse gases into our atmosphere, does nothing to capture the prevailing stock of greenhouse gases accumulated from 150 years of industrialization and that will remain in the atmosphere for upwards of a hundred or more years to come.

As long as the focus is «public fear about residing near nuclear power plants» and doesn't venture into the impacts of climate science denial and it's excessive allaying of public fears about excessive fossil fuel burning — it won't address the single most significant political impediment to nuclear.

And since most renewables don't require water for cooling, they dramatically reduce the water requirements for power production compared to fossil - fueled power plants.

The Directed Electric Generation Facility Cessation Mitigation Program provides payments to municipalities that depended on large fossil - fired generating plant property taxes when those facilities are closed down which certainly does not translate into reductions.

Geothermal plants emit only a tiny fraction of the emissions that fossil fuel powered plants do, and there is a seemingly endless amount of heat near the Earth's surface that remains untapped for power production.

Myself, I've been trying valiantly to point out how we don't have fossil fuel companies & skeptics planting unneeded doubt about AGW, but instead how have the opposite: enviro - activists working non-stop to plant doubt about the motives of skeptics.

That's because a working electricity system fueled mostly by wind turbines requires additional massive costs that a fossil fuel system does not: huge excess capacity (perhaps 300 - 400 %) to deal with conditions of light wind; gigantic batteries to store power for conditions of no wind at all, which can persist for days; extra transmission lines to bring electricity from windier areas to the rest of the country; and finally, an entire array of fossil fuel back - up plants for those occasions when the wind doesn't blow for a week and the batteries are dead.

I know your tongue is planted firmly in cheek, but I did some research on the matter, and found that the fossil fuel industry, automobile industry, and wal - mart - like fossil - fuel - based mega-scale consumer goods distribution industry have many thousands of times more money at stake (~ $ 10 trillion annually) on the outcome of this debate than do the scientists in question.

Neilio, I'm with you on this.I just love the way you stand up to that guy's strange arguments.I too am extremely concerned at the way we are all being made to follow this crazy «science», to the detriment of most normal Humans» lives.I'm in England.We are living on a huge mass of fossil fuel, (coal, oil and now gas from Fracking), and we're being told that we must not use it to keep warm.Coal - fired power plants are being shut down.Useless windfarms are swamping our country.Nuclear stations are planned when Germany has banned them in favour of Coal.China and India are building and using more coal stations than we ever did.

Just about nothing else would cost so much and do so little, so the bunnies have asked Eli why Roger and the Breakers are doubling down CO2 capture at the source (fossil fuel power plants, cement kilns) imposes a cost on the fossil fuel industry.

Figure 2: Data show that CO2 removed from the atmosphere by plant growth does not compensate for fossil fuel emissions.

simply saying that germany is building coal - fired plants to replace NUCLEAR REACTORS taken offline and consequently will produce more co2... how does that refute that solar can replace fossil fuel sources?

Beginning to use plant - based products will certainly help the company achieve its sustainability goals, though LEGO is just doing their part in a global economy still dominated by fossil fuels — finite resources that are the primary contributor to human - caused climate change.

He said fossil fuel subsidies were endemic in the US: «Every single well, pipeline, refinery, coal and gas plant in the country is heavily subsidised.Big Fossil's lobbyists have done their jobs well for the last century.&fossil fuel subsidies were endemic in the US: «Every single well, pipeline, refinery, coal and gas plant in the country is heavily subsidised.Big Fossil's lobbyists have done their jobs well for the last century.&Fossil's lobbyists have done their jobs well for the last century.»

So what good are fossil fuel power plants if they don't lead to greater grid access?

That is what they do in other countries where we prevent them from having fossil fuel power plants.

So China built many hundreds of coal plants in the last 15 years, and they lead the world in fossil fuel burned and CO2 emissions (accounting for 30 % of total world emissions), but this does not mean that the increase in capacity in China even correlates with fossil fuel burned?

Question: how many fossil fuel power plants do you think are running on standby at any time in Germany?

Constructing fossil fuel energy plants doesn't really cause CO2 emissions to increase, burning fuel in them does.

Despite the capacity increase of fossil fuel power plants in this example, did the CO2 emissions increase or not?

It doesn't matter how many windmills or solar panels or nuclear plants you build if you are not simultaneously retiring fossil fuel production.

(Now who pays for the research value is an interesting subject) As this plant utilizes steam to turn a turbine I suspect it can support the grid the same way conventional fossil fuel plants do, and photo - voltaic and wind resources do not.

And fossil fuel plants used for supplemental or backup power do NOT «keep spinning in the background» burning fossil fuels.

Wind turbines don't REPLACE fossil fuel power plants.

It also means you don't save that much in terms of carbon dioxide emissions, which is supposed to be the whole point, because you've got fossil fuel plants all fired up but only running at half - throttle or on «hot» standby.

But just because it's fossil fuel consumers like power plants and drivers who ultimately burn the coal, oil and gas that emit greenhouse gases, that doesn't let the producers off the hook, she added.