Sentences with phrase «replace nuclear ones»

But when gas plants replace nuclear ones, emissions go up.

Not exact matches

Macron has championed replacing the existing agreement with one that not only limits Iran's ballistic missile program, but also puts to an end any Iranian nuclear ambitions for the long - term, as well as its ballistic missile program.

At a more general level, the international system is returning to great power security competition, now that multipolarity is replacing the post-Cold War unipolar moment, and how that future will turn out is uncertain — but one thing that the last 67 years have shown is that nuclear deterrence is a fairly effective way of stopping major power security tension turning into all - out conventional war.

Many of the same warnings Mario Cuomo heard in the 1980s about Shoreham are the same ones his son hears today from supporters of Indian Point: Closing a nuclear plant will result in blackouts, a less reliable electric grid and increased air pollution as fossil fuels are burned to replace the lost emissions - free nuclear power; customers could face higher bills; more than 1,000 jobs will be lost, and tax revenue for schools and towns will dissipate.

Papers released under a freedom of information request reveal one of the MoD's top civil servants told senior industry figures the government had already decided to replace its nuclear munitions despite public assurances that no decision had been taken from defence secretary Des Browne.

With both Labour and the Conservatives committed to replacing Trident, the subject of Britain's nuclear deterrent was one of the few areas where David Cameron and Gordon Brown were in agreement.

In the one case, it is replaced with coal - based liquid fuels and in the other with renewable resources, such as wind, solar, or nuclear power.

With new, eco-friendly technologies waiting to replace old - school nuclear or fossil - fuel turbines like this one, the energy industry is going to drastically change... eventually.

London insists it needs new nuclear power plants to replace aging ones, but is also granting extended operating permits to those older units

For example, for the U.S. to derive one quarter of its total energy supply from nuclear would require building roughly 1,000 new reactors (both to replace old ones and expand the fleet).

Safety first Nuclear power remains one of the few energy sources that can replace coal in China.

Footnote * It's worth noting that Peter Raven was one of dozens of signatories to a 2014 «open letter to environmentalists on nuclear energy» endorsing this statement: «the full gamut of electricity - generation sources — including nuclear power — must be deployed to replace the burning of fossil fuels, if we are to have any chance of mitigating severe climate change.»

In 2011 critics denounced the decision to phase out nuclear and replace it with renewables as a «moral imperative» rather than an economic one.

One reason is that natural gas replaced not only coal last year; it also substituted for much lower - carbon hydroelectric, nuclear and solar power.

What makes EP's investigation even more significant is the crucial role Brown played in legitimizing anti-scientific anti-nuclear ideology, and creating the anti-nuclear movement — one which has replaced nuclear plants with fossil fuels (under the guise of renewable energy promotion) in Germany, Vermont, Japan, Taiwan, and other nations around the world.

... [one wedge] by 2050 would require adding globally, an average of 17 [nuclear] plants each year, while building an average of 9 plants a year to replace those that will be retired, for a total of one nuclear plant every two weeks for four decades — plus 10 Yucca Mountains to store the waste.

The annual cost of replacing all of South Korea's nuclear plants with natural gas would be $ 10 billion on top of a one - time cost of roughly $ 20 billion to build new natural gas plants.

Replacing California's last nuclear plant Diablo Canyon with solar would require 18 solar farms the size of one of the state's largest — and thus 18 times more transmission.

By fully committing to wind, solar, and geothermal, Japan could cancel all planned nuclear and fossil fuel power plants, replace the existing ones, and power its transportation system with carbon - free domestic energy.

One of the plant's investors reaffirmed recently that it would use the power from the nuclear plant to replace coal.

It remains one of the greatest ironies of the environmental movement that those most concerned with global warming, like Ms. Collard, are opposed to nuclear energy, the only non-greenhouse gas - emitting power source that can effectively replace fossil fuels while satisfying Canada's growing demand for energy.

Only outright contraction of the world's economy is going to suffice [note: A strong commitment to replacing coal plants with nuclear might be a partial solution, but it will never happen because the people calling for CO2 controls are the same ones who shut down our nuclear programs.

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.

One nuclear plant can replace three coal - fired plants.

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.

The so called Renewable Energy technologies such as Wind and Solar even if further refined and made more efficient, sought after efficiency increases that are now running into the problems of ever diminishing returns for the investments needed to raise those levels of efficiency, are now just one of the limiting factors in the hope of the so called Renewable Energy systems ever replacing today's base load coal, gas, oil, nuclear powered generators.

To make any difference with nuclear you first have to replace the retiring reactors and then start building ones that can start replacing coal plants.

A 2007 Keystone report concluded that just one wedge of nuclear power «would require adding on average 14 plants each year for the next 50 years, all the while building an average of 7.4 plants to replace those that will be retired» — plus 10 Yucca Mountains to store the waste.

Yes, replacing coal burning with nuclear would appear to be one of the easiest, pain - free ways to reduce CO2 emissions.

Instead of terrifying the public with scare stories about climate change caused by CO2 emissions, why aren't governments actually doing something about it by replacing fossil - fuel power stations with nuclear ones (and crushing any protests which try to stop them)?

By failing to support the goal of a transition to low emissions he shows he is incapable of providing any truly compelling reason to greatly expand the use of nuclear power and especially for using it to replace fossil fuels, ie his arguments look like one part of a broader anti-environmentalist, anti-renewables agenda, one that will not admit the full and true costs of the supposedly cheap and 100 % reliable, mostly fossil fuel based legacy electricity systems.

One of S&P's strategies to achieve a stabilization wedge is to add double the current global nuclear capacity to replace coal - based electricity.