Sentences with phrase «significantly less coal»

Ironically, if the world burns significantly less coal, that would lessen CO2 emissions but also reduce aerosols in the atmosphere that block the sun (such as sulfate particulates), so we would have to limit CO2 to below roughly 405 ppm.

Not exact matches

Exxon Mobil also touted its status as the United States» No. 1 natural gas producer, noting that gas emits significantly less CO2 than coal when burned to generate electricity.

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.

China has emitted significantly less carbon since 2000 than previously estimated because of erroneous assumptions about the quality of the country's coal, a study released today claims.

Coal production has increased significantly over the past 10 years, rising from less than 500,000 tons in 1994 to over 2,500,000 tons in 2004.

When used to generate electricity, the shale - gas footprint is still significantly greater than that of coal at decadal time scales but is less at the century scale.

According to NComputing, the access devices eliminate the need for air conditioning when there is a room full of the devices, since they create little heat, produce significantly less e-waste at the end of their extra long lifetimes, and according to their calculations, the company's current user base is right now saving 144 million kWh of electricity annually, 17,700 metric tons of coal, 112,300 metric tons of CO2, and about 8,100 metric tons of e-waste.

According to this chart PEF, and even RDF and unprocessed MSW, generate significantly less Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) the cause of «Acid Rain» than when using Coal.

PEF (Process Engineered Fuel) generates significantly less Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) which causes «Acid Rain» when compared to using Coal as fuel.

Between 2000 and 2008, coal was significantly less expensive than natural gas, and coal supplied about 50 % of total U.S. generation.

The reason: Since 2012, carbon pollution from the states» traditionally coal - heavy power sectors has dropped significantly, as new gas power plants have replaced older, less efficient coal plants.

After accounting for all the methane leakage factors mentioned by the Post, the NETL study clearly demonstrates that life cycle GHG emissions from LNG exports from the U.S. are significantly less than emissions from coal generated electricity in China and in Europe.

The US natural gas industry has often argued that a switch to natural gas will significantly reduce ghg emissions from the electricity sector because natural gas emits almost 50 % less CO2 per unit of energy produced than coal combustion.

She added, however, that in Missouri, wind energy has become less expensive than coal, and the state's solar energy industry has expanded significantly in recently years.

Even in the United States, different interests help shape different attitudes: Poorer Americans in states more dependent upon cheap coal electricity are far less likely to support policies that would cost jobs or significantly increase energy prices than are wealthier Americans on the coasts, whose energy supply is already much cleaner.

It has considerably lower emissions than a coal plant, (though it produces significantly less power than a coal plant too).

Environmental IssuesBecause biomass generally contains significantly less sulfur than coal, cofiring with biomass could reduce SOx emissions.