Sentences with phrase «replaced much coal»

For example, in Britain, emissions have been rising continuously for more than 10 years, following a «dash for gas» in the 1990s which replaced much coal - fired generation with cleaner, natural - gas - powered turbines.

Not exact matches

Build before Memory Runs Out Although individual consumer actions can help, major changes in carbon output will likely require better electricity - generation technologies, retiring much of the coal - fired capacity and replacing it with the most cost - effective combination of modern reactors, renewables and even clean coal.

In other words, replacing coal with natural gas will not have much benefit until far down the road because building extra infrastructure requires energy which is currently supplied by carbon - intensive sources.

Coal now generates less than 2 % of New England electricity, and it is increasingly being replaced by much cleaner natural gas.

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

But even much higher supplies of wind power would improve security only marginally, because the U.K. would still have to import just as much oil (wind replaces mostly coal, rarely oil) and much of its gas, leaving it dependent on Russia.

If all that coal power was replaced by cleaner natural gas, greenhouse - gas emissions from the power sector could fall by as much as 7 percent.

The United States — with its advanced technology and wealth of wind resources — should be a leader in this field, but unfortunately it continues to rely heavily on coal, a nineteenth century energy source, for much of its electricity at a time when European countries are replacing coal with wind.

This century, the government of the United Kingdom has adopted an energy policy designed to reduce the use of fossil fuels, especially coal, to generate electricity and replace them, as much as possible, with renewables, especially wind.

Incidentally, that much money could replace almost every coal plant in the region with clean gas - fired generation, which provides electricity much cheaper than wind while drastically reducing emissions.

Shutting down nuclear plants and replacing them with coal plants is pretty much the stupidest thing you could do.

Wind turbines can and do replace coal - burning power stations and the World Health Organisation tells us that air pollution, much of it from burning coal, kills seven million people each year.

Much like countries across the globe are doing today, Mexico began replacing coal plants with natural gas plants and importing as much fuel from the U.S. as possiMuch like countries across the globe are doing today, Mexico began replacing coal plants with natural gas plants and importing as much fuel from the U.S. as possimuch fuel from the U.S. as possible.

«We've looked at recent developments in China and India and they are actually overcompensating for the potential increase in emissions in the U.S.. That's because renewables are happening much faster in China and India, they are replacing coal much faster, and that leads to significantly lower emissions,» he said.

What they will be replaced with is anyone's guess, but the cost of a new coal fired plant with SO2, NOx and particulate scrubbers isn't all that much different then a nuclear plant.

Just to lay it all out, I also believe that if the anti-nuclear brigade had not caused the nuclear designers to have to over design NPPs over the past 40 years, we would now have about twice as much nuclear power as we do, a lot less coal power, nuclear would be replacing coal around the world, more of the world would be electrified, their would be less poverty.

When it comes to policy, it's pretty much impossible to limit the amounts of oil, gas and coal used unless one comes up with a superior way of replacing them.

In addition if coal combustion were to be replaced now by non-fossil fuel energy, it would help immediately much more than conversion of coal to natural gas combustion does in putting the world on an urgently needed ghg emissions reduction pathway needed to prevent catastrophic warming.

Coal, for instance, can be easily replaced by bio-waste, such as the non-edible portions of existing crops, mass - harvested seawead, azolla processed to remove much of the nitrogen, etc..

-- expand drilling / fracking to extract as much domestic energy as possible, — use clean natural gas, where possible, to replace dirtier coal and for heavy transportation vehicles; — support basic research efforts aimed at finding economically viable green energy technologies; — at the same time, install new nuclear power generation capacity in place of new coal plants, wherever this makes economic sense.

Going forward, if the U.S. is going to dramatically reduce carbon pollution in line with the Obama administration's goals and international benchmarks, it will take much more than building new natural gas capacity to replace coal, according to a new study published in the journal Nature last week.

This actually makes carbon emission reduction much easier... Just replace coal with natural gas... And then nuclear... Problem, such that it is, solved.

The second is to replace older coal plant and displace new coal builds with something much cleaner.

States are already devising plans to comply with the proposed carbon rules, and one of the most obvious and least expensive strategies is to replace coal with natural gas, which emits about half as much carbon.

I do agree with Hansen et al that the basic strategy is to replace virtually all of coal as quickly as possible, which is why so many of the wedges focused on electricity — that, along with the need to electrify transportation as much as possible.

solar, nuclear or greatly expand pumped hydro so that no FF would need to be used and for some countries such as China that don't have very much NG but are developing good hydro resources that may be the way they go once all coal is replaced.

If tomorrow we suddenly replaced 30GW of existing coal fired power -LRB-(20GWav) with 60GW wind (20GWav) but retained the present 15GW NG and 8GW hydro (1,5 GW av) how much additional pumped storage capacity and how large total storage would be required?

Much of the renewable subsidy industry justified in the name of these flawed models causes net grid emissions of CO2 to be much worse for much longer than simply replacing coal with clean low carbon gas and long term inevitable base load zero carbon nuclear on the grid, unsubsidised — but that's only a generation engineering fact from the laws of physMuch of the renewable subsidy industry justified in the name of these flawed models causes net grid emissions of CO2 to be much worse for much longer than simply replacing coal with clean low carbon gas and long term inevitable base load zero carbon nuclear on the grid, unsubsidised — but that's only a generation engineering fact from the laws of physmuch worse for much longer than simply replacing coal with clean low carbon gas and long term inevitable base load zero carbon nuclear on the grid, unsubsidised — but that's only a generation engineering fact from the laws of physmuch longer than simply replacing coal with clean low carbon gas and long term inevitable base load zero carbon nuclear on the grid, unsubsidised — but that's only a generation engineering fact from the laws of physics.

If coal power suddenly disappeared, it would revolutionize the climate picture, but if the oil sands vanished, we'd replace much of their crude with oil from somewhere else, and our global climate challenge would remain largely, though not entirely, unchanged.