Sentences with phrase «price than fossil fuel»

It would no longer be necessary to sell sustainably generated power at a higher price than fossil fuel generated power.

(While sustainably generated electricity is sold at a higher price than fossil fuel generated electricity — and this is a form of subsidy — it does not receive the numerous hidden subsidies that fossil fuel power gets.)

Not exact matches

Rive argues that when the factory is up and running it will be able to produce high - output PV cells at about 55 cents a watt — about a 20 % reduction from current prices, which will help Rive get closer to his goal of making solar cheaper than fossil fuels.

Making Solar Cheaper Than Fossil Fuels In the long run, all this wrangling with utilities won't do Rive much good if he can't beat them on price.

We predicted falling prices would make solar energy cheaper than fossil fuel in most states; that was overly exuberant.

But ten years later, the price would be four per cent lower than it will be under continued fossil fuel generation.

«What's more, biorefineries have trouble competing with low oil prices» — since biofuels are two to three times more expensive than fossil fuels.

That's been the goal of solar panel makers for a long time, because as those prices decline electricity from the sun costs the same as, or is even cheaper than electricity from burning fossil fuels.

In the meantime many contracts are being signed for electricity from solar energy at less than half the price of electricity from fossil fuels, even on an unsubsidized basis.

I doubt that politicians truely understand the problem at hand, it is not as if we have a new energy technology ready to fill in for fossil fusl at the present time and whilst I am sure than energy efficiency can reduce carbon emissions by around 25 % it will be left to the markets to decide this and that means awaiting the onset of peak fossil fuels to push up the price of it that will make other energy sources more viable.

, this means more than anything else that we should advocate removal of the wet blanket suffocating risk - reducing action throughout the economy --- that suffocating wet blanket being fossil fuels sold at prices that omit their worst costs.

A carbon tax will make fossil fuel prices come closer to covering full cost, incorporating some of those fuels» currently - excluded costs: our dependence on and enrichment of oil - country despots, huge military costs of protecting distant oil operations and transport, health costs from emissions other than CO2, etc., etc., etc.....

what drivel... the timing couldnt be better (for Rs) when oil prices are sky high and here is AlGo, the quintessential hypocrite who burns more fossil fuels and consumes more power than most would in a lifetime, propgandizing to the opposite...

Suffice to say that when you factor in all of the government subsidies and «externalities» (increased health costs from respiratory sickness, environmental degradation, etc; the stuff that we all have to pay for maybe not from our wallets but in our tax returns), the true price of fossil fuels is much, much higher than any individual or company pays.

In more than 30 countries, electricity produced through solar and wind energy is the same price or cheaper than any new fossil fuel capacity, the report, released last Wednesday, noted.

«Along with new policies that spur competition in several other countries, this Chinese dynamic has led to record - low announced prices of solar PV and onshore wind, which are now comparable or even lower than new - built fossil fuel alternatives.

Not so with CO2E; the price of CO2E is demonstrated by the BC case to be up to some five times more sensitive than the price of the fossil fuels it is attached to.

While prices for biomass fuels are lower than fossil fuel prices and have generally remained stable, rapidly increasing demand may push prices up in the future.

By some estimates, I - 732 would raise gasoline and electricity prices less than 15 percent by 2040 in Washington State — hardly enough to jumpstart an urgent, sweeping phase - out of fossil fuels.

With gasoline prices approaching $ 4 / gallon, fossil fuel shortages, unrest in oil producing regions around the globe and mainstream consumer adoption and adoption of the hybrid electric car (more than 140,000 Prius» sold this year), this story couldn't be more relevant or important.

Mandates and subsidies for fossil - fuel intensive biofuels such as corn - derived ethanol are so large that eliminating or reducing them would almost certainly do more than a carbon tax to curb these fuels» artificial price advantage.

C. Technically, it is still possible to solve the climate problem, but there are two essential requirements: (1) a simple across - the - board (all fossil fuels) rising carbon fee [2] collected from fossil fuel companies at the domestic source (mine or port of entry), not a carbon price «scheme,» and the money must go to the public, not to government coffers, otherwise the public will not allow the fee to rise as needed for phase - over to clean energy, (2) honest government support for, rather than strangulation of, RD&D (research, development and demonstration) of clean energy technologies, including advanced generation, safe nuclear power.

Moreover, they drive climate change by encouraging the consumption of polluting fuels while tilting the playing field against renewable power and energy efficiency: Fossil - fuel subsidies are five times greater than renewable energy subsidies, and they inflate domestic demand and discourage energy efficiency through artificially low energy prices, undermining the energy security of fossil - fuel importing counFossil - fuel subsidies are five times greater than renewable energy subsidies, and they inflate domestic demand and discourage energy efficiency through artificially low energy prices, undermining the energy security of fossil - fuel importing counfossil - fuel importing countries.

The analyses published in Nordhaus (2008)[2] show the «cost competitive alternative to fossil fuels» policy (called «Low - cost backstop policy») is far better than the «Optimal carbon price» policy.

But he didn't complain, other than to point out that the exponential part of their law was weakening lately with the 1974 oil crisis and increasing prices for all fossil fuels, with which I fully agreed.

But if you use the argument that nuclear is too expensive because it is 12 % higher cost than fossil fuels, can you tell me how much more expensive is the synthetic biology fuel you are advocating than current fuel prices (delivered to the consumer)?

The reason both countries, who have large readily available coal reserves are so heavily reliant on fossil fueled electricity generation is because, without carbon pricing, it's slightly cheaper than nuclear power.

If TCR / ECS are lower than assumed by IPCC experts, and if we use resource limits on oil, gas and coal (rather than using the hyper cornucopian figures used in RCP8.5), then the market, emerging technology driven by higher fossil fuel prices will reduce emissions to have concentration peak at ~ 630 ppm (that's a rough estimate).

The up - front investments are expensive, but savings will begin to exceed those costs by 2040, and even sooner if oil prices rise faster than expected, or if we factor in the costs of climate change and the impact of burning fossil fuels on public health.

I know many on this site beleive peak oil is a bigger threat than global warming, but I can't help but think the 20 - 100 year time lag between CO2 release and maximum effect is a far less addressable than issues of increasing fossil fuel prices.

And if in the future gas prices are higher than anticipated, renewables become even more cost - effective and reduce our exposure to those volatile fossil fuel price spikes going forward.

(It bears noting that the technologies are cleaner than fossil fuels, and therefore create fewer pollution costs for society, many of which are not counted in the price of electricity.)

Fuel price is far more stable than fossil fuels because the fuels is effectively unlimited and the fuel price is effectively irrelevant anyway because it comprises only about 5 % of the cost of nuclear generated electricFuel price is far more stable than fossil fuels because the fuels is effectively unlimited and the fuel price is effectively irrelevant anyway because it comprises only about 5 % of the cost of nuclear generated electricfuel price is effectively irrelevant anyway because it comprises only about 5 % of the cost of nuclear generated electricity.

But capping emissions on a fixed schedule would produce its own uncertainties: if alternatives to fossil fuels (e.g., renewables, efficiencies, carbon sequestration) materialized more slowly than planned, demand would not be met and price rises would ensue.

This Pollyanna view of fossil fuel alternatives and efficiency, which makes going green seem cheap and easy — little more than the cost of «a postage stamp a day» — has provided the justification for green - policy advocacy that has overwhelmingly focused on pollution regulations and carbon pricing while ignoring serious investment in energy research and development.

It's our dependency on fossil fuels which is driving energy bill prices up, aided along the way by the stealth taxes that have been applied to energy bills by successive governments (but by no government more than this one).

Oil prices will continue to drop, fossil fuels will continue to supply more than three - quarters of world energy use in 2040, and natural gas is expected to grow the fastest impacting on economies, companies, communities, and individuals.

The market has now clearly signaled that fossil fuel energy will remain lower cost than «green» energy despite some reductions in green energy prices in recent decades.

For the moment, large - scale solar and wind are roughly similar in price and lower than nuclear and fossil fuels.

Figure 8 shows our stylized merit order for German fossil - fuel (FF) plant over 2024 - 28, assuming a much higher increase in EUA prices than under our base case.

If we do need to reduce GHG emissions we can replace fossil fuels much more cheaply than by further distorting energy markets by introducing carbon pricing mechanisms.

In the last few years it has made even less given the rapid fall of oil, coal, and natural gas prices, which have made «green energy» even less economically competitive with fossil fuels than it already was.

This market would allow Ontario businesses and residents to access surplus clean power at the wholesale market price of less than two cents per kilowatt - hour (KWh), which could displace the use of fossil fuels by using things like dual fuel (gas and electric) water heaters, and by producing emission - free hydrogen fuel.

The 50 per cent drop in oil price over the past year is none other than a very intentional effort to take off the table very expensive fossil - fuel exploration and projects that will not be viable with lower prices.

Additionally, subsidies don't encourage building where it will do the most good — as discussed below, the location chosen to build a windmill may well be different if motivated by correct pricing of fossil fuels rather than subsidies / mandates.

Fossil Fuel prices aren't tanking for any logical reason: some say it's to stop America drilling for their own reserves and thus it's Geo - political rather than for any natural limiting factor!

California's two biggest pension funds lost more than $ 5 billion (U.S.) since June 2014 because of the declining value of their fossil fuel holdings, while Norway's massive sovereign fund, which has already divested many of its fossil fuel assets, still lost $ 40 billion between July and August, partly because of falling oil prices.

Moreover, I would suggest that those of us in «the electorate» who are well - informed about this issue are well aware that changes in public policy — including putting a price on carbon pollution, directly regulating GHG emissions, and providing effective support for the development and deployment of efficiency and renewable energy technologies on a scale at least comparable to the subsidies that fossil fuels have received for a century — are far more effective than the options that any individual can currently choose, and are in fact crucial to making more such options available to all of us.

After all, assuming substantial use of unconventional fossil fuels (UFFs) in the BAU scenario, suggests a certain amount of insensitivity to price (assuming UFFs are significantly more expensive than conventional fossil fuels).

In the case of solar power, while utility - scale solar is just becoming cheaper than fossil fuels on the wholesale electricity market, rooftop solar panels have long competed with much - higher retail electricity prices.