Sentences with phrase «reducing coal and nuclear»

The current trend is to increasingly rely on natural gas - fired power plants and reducing coal and nuclear sources.

Since 2000, the EU has added a net 84,000 megawatts of wind while reducing coal and nuclear power capacity by a net 10,000 and 14,000 megawatts, respectively.

Not exact matches

Macron has also said he wants to phase out France's use of coal power in five years and reduce its reliance on nuclear power to 50 % by 2025.

New Chinese hydro, nuclear, wind and solar are also significantly curtailing coal power generation, driven not only by energy security and climate concerns but also by efforts to reduce local pollution.

This means developing more of America's own energy resources, including wind, solar, clean coal, biofuels, nuclear energy, as well as oil and natural gas — which will reduce our dependence on Middle Eastern oil and create thousands of jobs here at home.

The predictions also assume that the rising contribution of gas - fired and nuclear plants will reduce coal's contribution to 20 per cent of Britain's electricity needs by the end of the decade.

In contrast with electricity generated from coal or natural gas, nuclear power contributes little to greenhouse gas emissions and could therefore help in the effort to reduce global warming.

I myself have been accused of being a paid shill for the coal industry, because I argued that rapidly deploying solar and wind energy technologies, along with efficiency and smart grid technologies, is a much faster and much more cost effective way of reducing GHG emissions from electricity generation than building new nuclear power plants.

Since 2005, the substitution of natural gas for coal as well as increases in renewable and nuclear generation helped to reduce these emissions.

VRE's signals of increased flexibility does have the potential of reducing revenue and operations profits for nuclear and coal plants, less so for natural gas sourced units.

Mark has already been called a chernobyl death denier by greens, for thinking nuclear is a good option, ie reduce coal CO2 emission build nuclear and has been critical of the reaction over Japan (ie Germany to close ALL nuclear down)

As an economy reduces its emissions it will start with the cheapest abatement measures (energy savings) and then move to the more expensive measures by replacing energy - using equipment and switching from high - emission sources such as coal to low emission sources such as natural gas and nuclear power.

The CSIRO «MyPower» calculator shows that, even in Australia where we have cheap, high quality coal close to the main population centres and where nuclear power is strongly opposed, nuclear power would be the cheapest way to reduce emissions: http://www.csiro.au/Outcomes/Energy/MyPower.aspx

Nuclear power would provide many other benefits as well: energy security, reliable energy supply, reduce shipping costs and energy used in shipping coal by a factor of 20,000 to 2 million, provide fresh water, no need for carbon pricing, avoid 1 million fatalities per year by 2050,... https://judithcurry.com/2012/08/17/learning-from-the-octopus/#comment-231867.

For example, if a massive global nuclear expansion was one way of savagely reducing the amount of coal and natural gas burned in power stations (which it is) and the cost disadvantage of nuclear wasn't completely silly (which it isn't) then that could work.

Reduce dependency on (imported) fossil fuels (balance of payments, reliance on potentially unfriendly or unstable nations as suppliers, high cost at the pump, all problems as seen from US viewpoint): — encourage nuclear power generation (cut red tape)-- encourage energy savings and improved efficiency projects (tax breaks)-- encourage basic research into new (non fossil fuel) resources (subsidies)-- encourage imports from friendly neighbor, Canada (Keystone pipeline)-- encourage local oil and gas exploration («drill, baby, drill»)-- encourage «clean coal» projects (tax incentives)-- set goal to become energy independent within ten years

An excellent study by Joe Wheatley of the relatively isolated all Ireland grid, EifrGrid, which has negligible hydro, negligible interconnectors to UK, no nuclear and a mix of modern CCGT, coal, peat and CHP plants, and 17 % of electricity generated by wind power in 2011, found that wind was just 53 % effective at reducing CO2 emissions per MWh.

Instead of doing this, why don't we simply fix the broken permit process for new nuclear plants and give modest tax incentives to industries or individuals that implement «no regrets» initiatives to reduce CO2, such as: — replace new coal - fired power plants with nuclear or natural gas (where a gas supply exists)-- replace newnormal automobiles with hybrids — replace Diesel for new heavy transport with natural gas — install energy savings initiatives (waste recycling, better building insulation, etc..)

Such information has contributed to unrealistic expectations by the public, media, state officials and Congress that wind energy will play a significant role in reducing the need to rely on coal, natural gas, oil, nuclear energy and hydropower.

Again, states have plenty of leeway on how to reduce emissions: they can switch from coal to natural gas, expand renewables or nuclear, boost energy efficiency, enact carbon pricing... And if states refuse to submit a plan, the EPA will impose its own federal plan, which could involve some sort of cap - and - trade progrAnd if states refuse to submit a plan, the EPA will impose its own federal plan, which could involve some sort of cap - and - trade progrand - trade program.

On the other hand, it is reasonable to assume that natural market factors will gradually result in a reduction of ever more expensive fossil fuel combustion as older coal - fired power plants are shut down and replaced by nuclear plants, as hybrid and electrical cars gradually replace gasoline and diesel driven ones, and as energy efficiency is improved and waste reduced.

Though the goal of Germany's «energy turnaround» is to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions while gradually phasing out nuclear and coal plants in favor of more renewables, the results have been a mixed bag.

Baseload plants such as coal and nuclear are hit particularly hard by reduced wholesale electricity prices as they have low fuel costs and so don't save much money by shutting down or reducing output on sunny days.

We already have a good way of massively reducing our CO2 emissions (far more than even banning aviation altogether would achieve)-- namely replacing coal - and gas - fired power stations with nuclear ones.

«Wind energy's major cost declines have, and will continue to be, critical to opening up new opportunities throughout Canada — whether it is to support the coal phase - out, or to fill an emerging power supply gap as nuclear power plants are refurbished in Ontario, or to help the northeast United States reduce its reliance on fossil - fuel powered generation through clean electricity imports from Quebec or Atlantic Canada.

«It is very expensive to reduce emissions, and unless you're willing to build nuclear power plants, there is no substitute for coal, natural gas, and oil,» said Ebell.

There are many candidate technologies for reducing our CO2 emissions, ranging from nuclear power and «clean coal» to extensive investment in energy efficiency.

The high efficiency, modular capability and low capital cost reduces cost over conventional nuclear by 30 % making it competitive against gas and coal fired plants.

to craft a measure to reduce heat - trapping gases in the power sector and encourage development of nuclear power, «clean» coal, natural gas and offshore oil drilling.

Via email, McCabe tells me that the most important factor in the IEA model is crowding out: Cheap shale gas will reduce coal usage (good) but will also reduce development of new nuclear, wind, and solar power (bad).

Until we start building nuclear in Australia renewables are the only way we are likely to reduce burning coal, and will be significant contributors for the next 30 years even if we go all out to build nuclear power as fast as possible (for example as fast as Canada or Korea did over the last 30 years).

While some leading industrial countries have been reducing subsidies to fossil fuels — notably coal, the most climate disrupting of all fuels — the United States has been increasing its support for the fossil fuel and nuclear industries.

Prior to the earthquake and nuclear crisis, Japan's government had pledged to reduce CO2 emissions to 25 % below 1990 levels by 2020, a challenge that would be virtually impossible should coal or LNG play a greatly expanded role in the nation's electricity system.

The Tokyo Electric Power Company is also in talks with the blockchain startup Grid +, looking to make energy systems more efficient and reduce reliance on nuclear power, oil and coal.

Under the proposed rule, EPA would require states to reduce CO2 emission through a variety of activities, including (1) Increasing the efficiency of existing power plants; (2) switching from coal - fired power plants to natural gas plants; (3) increasing renewable energy sources, such as nuclear, wind or solar; and (4) reducing the demand for energy through enhanced energy efficiency.