Sentences with phrase «requires more coal»

Not exact matches

Requiring the reduction of carbon emissions will make coal - based energy more costly, while solar and wind technology are expected to be priced more competitively, thereby supporting those alternative energy industries, says Jason Blumberg, chief executive and managing director of Energy Foundry, a Chicago - based cleantech impact venture capital fund.

Market equilibrium for the U.S. coal industry will require further industry consolidation and more mine closures according to the group.

But opponents, including Morrisey and members of West Virginia's Legislature who crafted H.B. 2004, argue that EPA legally can only require specific changes to make coal plants run more efficiently.

The reason: it requires extra energy to turn the coal to gas and then to capture the CO2 as well — in effect requiring the burning of more coal to generate the same amount of electricity.

Another measure, the federal Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, will require still more expensive controls on coal plants in the Midwest and South to reduce sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions that travel across state lines, creating ozone and fine particle pollution downwind.

Although solar thermal collectors are better than photovoltaic panels or wind turbines at generating reliable power around the clock, solar thermal power is also expensive; at present energy costs, it would require government subsidies to compete with coal and natural gas, which can generate electricity much more cheaply.

«More than anything else this requires rapid and strong reductions of burning fossil fuels such as coal; but some emissions, for instance from industrial processes, will be difficult to reduce — therefore getting CO2 out of the air and storing it safely is a rather hot topic.

Tack on the CPP (middle map), which would require coal plants to capture some of their carbon emissions, and coal (red) cedes more territory to wind and natural gas.

So if extracting methane requires more than 30 per cent of the energy it yields, using coal would be...

Whereas solar or wind farms have few negative environmental side effects, they require more space and produce less energy than environmentally unfriendly coal plants.

Although fracking in the U.S. produces more than 100 billion gallons of wastewater per year, the process requires significantly less water per unit of energy than extraction and processing for coal and nuclear power, according to past research by Jackson and his colleagues.

As rumored, EPA will require that all new natural gas - fired plants emit no more than 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt - hour, and coal plants no more than 1,100 pounds per megawatt - hour.

The warmest winter on record — driven by climate change — is also driving down the need for wintertime electricity required for home heating, which drives down the need for more coal, IEEFA analyst Seth Feaster said in the report.

Of course, it makes more economic sense to burn the torrified wood instead of coal, so reducing the proportion of the GP required for sequestering the excess carbon already added to the active carbon cycle.

The game gets more difficult as bubbles appear faster on the board, the number of colors increases, and coal obstacles, requiring some strategy to be destroyed.

The EPA has proposed a Carbon Pollution Standard for Future Power Plants, which would restrict the emission of greenhouse gases, requiring coal plants, in particular, to be more efficient and cleaner.

Two fossil fuel facts define the basic actions that are required to preserve our planet's climate: (1) it is impractical to capture CO2 as it is emitted by vehicles (the mass of emitted CO2 is about three times larger than the mass of fuel in the tank), and (2) there is much more CO2 contained in coal and unconventional fossil fuels than in oil and gas.

-- Of those 274 coal plants, more than one - third are not required to monitor or report discharges of these toxic metals to government agencies or to the public.

Power generators are turning away from coal for a host of reasons: In some instances natural gas is cheaper; many states are requiring utilities to generate a certain portion of electricity from renewable resources; individual cities (and even an entire Canadian province) have decided to stop purchasing electricity created by burning coal; and new Environmental Protection Agency regulations are making it more expensive and less economical to use coal plants.

As the government floats the prospect of help for cleaner - coal power stations and attacks Labor for committing too strongly to renewables, Shorten will say that to achieve the ALP's 50 % target much more private investment in renewable generation and technology will be needed than the amount required to get to the legislated Renewable Energy Target (RET).

It also emits more CO2 than coal plants and to this writer it seems strange that the UK will look to North and South America to supply them with biomass fuel that requires processing and shipment thousands of miles, when they (Drax) could use locally mined coal to generate power.

Renewable installations can require hundreds to thousands more acres of land than a coal, natural gas or nuclear power plant to produce the same power.

She points out that wind power is actually more labour intensive than coal, and requires 2.5 time more units of labour for every MW of electricity produced.

As shown above, alternative energy produced only 5.7 % of Pennsylvania's power while 56 % of Pennsylvania's electricity comes from coal, requiring more electricity to come from more expensive resources will inevitably raise prices.

Between 25 - 40 % more coal would be required to produce the same amount of energy using this technology.

Designating natural gas plants as the best available technology — essentially requiring utilities to generate less electricity from coal and more from gas instead of being limited solely to requiring that coal plants operate more efficiently — has allowed the administration to establish much more ambitious emissions reduction requirements and is one of the central provisions that legal opponents have challenged.

It requires 50 % more coal - generated electricity to cover wind power's unpredictability, and pollution and carbon dioxide

All the law did was require coal plants to use them, a change that had very little impact on consumers, who were more concerned then about acid rain than they are today about global warming.

For example, a 525 megawatt cogeneration unit at a refinery might require 6 million gallons per day (MGD) of water intake, while a similar 525 megawatt coal - fired boiler could use more than 14 MGD.

More than half of this potential is from a handful of categories — solar and wind energy, efficient passenger cars, afforestation and halting deforestation — and requires quickly reducing reliance on, and soon phasing out, coal - fired power not equipped with carbon capture and storage.

A single turbine requires 700-1000 tons of concrete, steel, copper and fiberglass — far more raw materials than involved with coal or gas - fired power plants, generating equal amounts of electricity far more reliably and cheaply.

Where locally produced sustainable energy might not be available, the power required for the drying of coal could be taken from the grid when electricity is abundant - that is, when sustainable electricity generation methods are puting more electricity into the grid than is being consumed.

In this case, however, for the disproportionately poor and minority communities who live near coal - burning power plants, our view is that more regulation, rather than less, may be required.

The ratio of energy returned on energy invested (EROEI) for fossil energy production has tended to fall as high - quality deposits of oil, coal, and natural gas are depleted, and as society relies more on unconventional oil and gas that require more energy for extraction, and on coal that is more deeply buried or that is of lower energy content.

Thus, we neither favor nor oppose so - called «clean coal,» i.e., combustion of coal with carbon dioxide captured and sequestered from the atmosphere; though we're not bullish on Carbon Capture and Storage in light of the considerable (~ 30 - 40 %) oversizing of generating capacity and coal throughput required to process flue gas to safely remove 90 % or more of the CO2.

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.

Current proposals by global warming advocates will likely cost billions of dollars and require a wholesale transformation of the nation's economy and society. Americans could be paying 30 percent more for natural gas in their homes and even more for electricity.  The cost of coal could quadruple and crude oil prices could rise by an additional -LSB-...]

Earlier this week, Earthjustice attorney Jenny Harbine went to court to argue that the state of Montana was legally required to consider steps to minimize the consequences of burning more than a half - a-billion tons of coal before leasing it to St. Louis - based Arch Coal, Icoal before leasing it to St. Louis - based Arch Coal, ICoal, Inc..

Setting Ohio's renewable energy standard to require 20 % or more renewable energy by 2025 would reduce Ohio's exposure to the risks of overdependence on coal and natural gas and create economic benefits for the state as these resources are developed.

But the issues of relevance here are: (a) whether you can have enough of it to avoid building more coal (current situation in Germany says «no»); (b) whether you can have enough of it to displace current coal; (c) whether you can have, store, and distribute, enough of it to meet future energy growth (especially in the developing world) and the conversion to an all - electric society; (d) whether you can run a modern society without baseload generation [answer: perhaps, perhaps not, but if yes, it requires a complete reconfiguration of the way we manage electricity].

CCS also does reduce the efficiency of coal plants, ironically requiring more fossil fuel and more water use to run the capture systems and make up for lost efficiency of a non-CCS system.

Rising utility bills: Over 90 % of the executives surveyed believe that rules requiring the use of more renewable energy and a cut in pollution from coal - fired power plants will lead to higher monthly utility bills for consumers.

Science News fills us in: Capturing Carbon Does Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions Though a coal power plant equipped to sequester carbon requires about 30 % more coal to provide the power to compress the captured CO2 and pump it underground, the overall carbon emissions still are reduced by 71 - 78 % compared with an average coal plant for every usable unit of electricity produced.

The 2007 agreement had required AEP to install flue gas desulfurization (FGD) technology at the plant — a more expensive technology that results in greater pollution reductions — but Sierra Club and the other parties agreed to the DSI technology in return for an earlier installation date, the other coal plant retirements, and clean energy investments.