Sentences with phrase «replaces more coal»

That increase comes largely because natural gas eventually replaces more coal in electricity generation thanks to future carbon emissions reduction policy.

Not exact matches

Electric utilities have been replacing coal plants with gas - fired facilities because they are more efficient and less expensive to operate.

In 1980, at the Downs, Clive Osborne replaced coal with natural gas, which was more efficient and made it easier to regulate temperature, to produce crystals of the right size.

Yohe estimates the cost of achieving a more modest goal of holding warming to roughly 2 degrees C at a cost of 0.5 to 1.5 percent of gross domestic product for the U.S. by 2050, thanks to the expense incurred by, for example, replacing existing coal - fired power plants with renewables or retrofitting them with carbon - capture technology.

Finally, taking a more worldly view, they estimated replacing coal - fired power plants in Japan with liquid - natural - gas plants that burn fuel imported from the United States would also be a net - plus for the environment, with a 15 percent emissions savings.

The study also found that, although transmitting coal power was slightly more effective at reducing air pollution impacts than simply replacing old coal power plants with newer, cleaner ones in the east, both coal scenarios had approximately the same carbon emissions.

In other words, the more coal - fired power plants that can be replaced by those running on natural gas, the better it may be for the climate.

The Ontario Energy Board says prices are rising as more expensive types of energy replace coal power.

Whether the discussion turns to replacing coal - fired power plants with wind turbines and using electric cars instead of gas - driven SUVs, converting industrial agricultural practices to organic permaculture, or reversing the decline of ocean life though international regulations, it is an article of faith in the reform movement that we know what we need to do and all that's lacking is a sufficiently visionary leader to put more planet - friendly solutions in place.

If taxes and fines proportional to the costs could be imposed, coal would lose some of its competitive advantages, and would be replaced more rapidly by natural gas and then solar and wind.

A more likely scenario if we do nothing is that emissions will continue at a rapid pace as oil from sand and shale plus coal substantially replace oil and natural gas, with the consequence that we will have dug ourselves into a deeper hole in terms of having sufficient resources to reduce emissions sufficiently without major disruption to our society.

The increased generation could lead to replacing aging coal - fired plants sooner with newer, more environmentally friendly versions,» said Kintner - Meyer.

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.

Their primary objective is to close coal power plants in the United States, including at least one - third of the country's more than 500 coal plants by 2020, and to replace them with renewable energy sources.

Backing out fossil fuels begins with the electricity sector, where the development of 5,153 gigawatts of new renewable generating capacity by 2020, over half of it from wind, would be more than enough to replace all the coal and oil and 70 percent of the natural gas now used to generate electricity.

Over the coming decades, as more coal plants reach the ends of their lifespans and are retired, they will likely be replaced by more cost - competitive energy sources.

And on May 25, Break Free, a day of coordinated action across Africa will show how the Lamu fight is emblematic of a larger movement brewing, rejecting coal and ensuring it's replaced by alternative, renewable solutions that can address energy and financial poverty and build more resilient communities.

However, as China continues to replace older, less efficient generators with more efficient units, China's power sector coal consumption is expected to peak as soon as 2018, at 4,800 million metric tons.

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?

For more about how natural gas is replacing coal, see here.

The New England power grid is rapidly changing as energy efficiency and wind and solar power increasingly replace fossil fuels, and natural gas replaces more expensive coal and oil.

The EU is behind the biomass scam where coal is replaced with wood and wood produces more CO2 than coal.

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.

Replacing oil and coal with gas today would allow only three more years of carbon emissions at best, dashing the idea that gas is a low - carbon energy source or that it can be a «transition fuel» to renewables.

To replace a 1500 MW coal plant with wind turbines means you will need way more than 1500 MW of installed capacity of wind generation to get an average of 1500 MW of power even if you had a perfect energy storage system.

Ample alt energy — even if more somewhat more expensive — could replace coal and allow (should it become necessary) electrification of ground transportation (replacing oil).

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.

If you replace 100 TWh of coal power with 90 TWh gas and 10 TWh wind / solar, of course gas saved more CO2 emissions.

According to Reuters, «The plan gives states multiple options to achieve their emission targets, such as improving power plant heat rates; using more natural gas plants to replace coal plants; ramping up zero - carbon energy, such as solar or nuclear; and increasing energy efficiency.

Anyway, it is interesting that you can wrap your head around a statement like this (basically, electricity produced by gas / nuclear prevents production from coal and thus saved emissions), but are unable to understand that renewables do exactly the same (replacing emissions from coal) and they even do it more effectively than gas and way cheaper than nuclear.

U.S. emissions have been falling for more than half a decade, as coal burning is replaced by fracked natural gas and wind power.

It comes down to this: If we think that coal plants would stick around for 15 years or more in the absence of gas, its probably better to replace them with gas today.

There are rules that can be applied like replacing less efficient fuels (in terms of energy per CO2 released) like coal with more efficient ones like natural gas, and never switching towards less efficient fuels like shale oil from more efficient ones like regular oil.

More details on the various technologies for conservation and efficiency, photovoltaic power, wind power, etc. that can collectively replace coal can be found in the technology - specific pages listed here.

If they were replaced by coal, the carbon emissions would more than double.»

«If the nukes close, new gas would most likely fill in the gap, rather than replacing more carbon - intense coal generation.

As coal plants get retired, utilities aren't replacing them with more coal.

«There's still a bit of social perception about replacing coal with something else, but I think that is finally hitting a tipping point where people are more receptive to it,» he said.

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.

Keep the current fission nuclear power running and replace oil, coal and gas with more wind and solar.

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.

Even more importantly, if we replace coal fired power stations with renewable energy, we will greatly reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that are one of the main causes of climate change and ocean acidification.

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.

And with many power plants in Europe and elsewhere starting to replace coal with wood, the question of who is right is becoming ever more important.

Burning wood may be close to carbon neutral in some situations, such as where it is clear that cut trees are replaced with the same trees, one for one; but in others it can emit even more carbon than coal.

After all, we have way more renewable energy potential than we can use, and you have a whole bunch of coal - fired power you need to replace.

Solutions: replacing coal - fired boilers with cleaner more efficient gas heating systems, upgraded roof systems with heat - reflective materials, green roofs and solar arrays, larger more insulated windows, adding space to existing schools (source = State of our Schools 2016)

States like Alabama, Maryland, Michigan, and Wisconsin could each save more than 250 billion gallons of water withdrawals a year by replacing uncompetitive coal generators with renewable energy.

The authors claim that it would be feasible to replace 59 % of current U.S. coal - fired electricity generation with 214,000 to 236,000 (or potentially more than 366,000) large windmills.

Replacing aging water - hungry coal plants with technologies that require little or no water, like renewables and energy - efficient technologies that reduce overall electricity demand, would lead to significant water savings across the country and a cleaner, more resilient energy future.