Sentences with phrase «sources over fossil fuel»

However, a majority of Americans say they would prefer a focus on alternative energy sources over fossil fuel development.

Though China leads, many other countries also are building small - scale structures, as the economics of generation increasingly favor renewable sources over fossil fuels.

Not exact matches

Indeed, a recent research report from New Zealand's National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) found that the majority of methane released in the air over the last 10 years likely came from agricultural sources (cow burps) as opposed to fossil fuel production.

Viewed in one dimension, the standoff over construction of a 1,172 - mile, $ US 3.8 billion oil pipeline pits thousands of protesters massed on the prairie to safeguard a sole source of tribal drinking water from the fossil fuel industry and its allies in government and finance.

The findings suggest that without nuclear power utilities would turn to fossil fuels over renewable sources.

The study also concludes that, over a 15 - year period, cutting the black carbon produced by burning fossil fuels, vegetation, dung and other sources could reduce the warming the Earth has experienced since the Industrial Revolution — about 0.8 degrees Celsius — by 17 to 23 percent.

From the Post Carbon Institute comes a quick video of the history of fossil fuels and the growth of the modern economy over the last 300 years: You might also be interested in this recent post: «Energy source transitions over time - what comes next?

The jist of this is that we must NOT suddenly switch off carbon / sulphur producing industries over the planet but instead we must first dramatically reduce CO2 emissions from every conceivable source, then gradually tackle coal / fossil fuel sources to smoothly remove the soot from the air to prevent a sudden leap in average global temps which if it is indeed 2.75 C as the UNEP predicts will permanently destroy the climates ability to regulate itself and lead to catastrophic changes on the land and sea.

Even though the country already generates over 99 percent of its electricity from renewable sources and ran entirely on alternative energy for 250 days in 2016, completely banning fossil fuels across all industries will likely prove difficult.

As we move toward all of these goals, and over time put the age of fossil fuels behind us, we must consider every alternative source of power, and that includes nuclear power.

Sea salt comes from sea spray over the oceans, dust from dry desert areas, black carbon from burning of forests and fossil fuels, sulphates derive from ocean plankton and burning coal, nitrates derive from fertiliser use, car exhausts and lightning, and secondary organics come from the stew of volatile organic compounds from industrial and natural sources alike.

In addition, in Table 1 of the referenced source, only about 50 % of the estimated emissions from fossil fuels over the nearly 200 year period from 1800 to 1994 (given in petragrams Pg) is taken up by the oceans, disregarding estimated and highly uncertain source emissions from land use.

Here's something about which I'm sure we can agree: Fossil fuels will naturally over the course of time become more expensive, more so if we don't bring other sources of energy online.

Renewable energy sources are replacing fossil fuels now, all over the world, and increasingly are doing so at cost * savings.

Over the past half century, I think fossil fuels have become a source of complacency rather than a stimulus for growth.

The Council of the American Physical Society believes that the use of renewable energy sources, the adoption of new ways of producing and using fossil fuels, increased consideration of safe and cost effective uses of nuclear power, and the introduction of energy - efficient technologies can, over time, promote the United States» energy security and reduce stress on the world's environment.

Mongabay: Why did climate activists choose to focus on the pipeline over the Obama administration's approval of drilling in the Arctic, which is opening a new source of fossil fuels and, if a spill occurs, could be near - impossible to clean - up?

This proved that the increased CO2 concentration over the last century was due to fossil fuel combustion, not volcanic activity or an other source.

The United States faces a vexing challenge in switching from conventional to clean sources to generate electricity: How do we replace fossil fuel when natural gas costs $ 4 per million BTU and demand for electricity is expected to increase by over 20 % by 2035?

That major fossil fuel producers are now following the global trend should be taken as the most emphatic evidence yet that the switch to renewable sources of energy is, over the long term, irreversible.

They choose fossil fuels over renewable energy sources because they are cheaper and tend to think short - term instead of looking ahead.

The Cabinet member responsible replied that she was happy to be able to announce that, recognising the growing financial risks associated with fossil fuels, the Council would commit to transferring over time any current investments in these «traditional» energy sources.

By doing so, it helps maintain the state's status quo of having below average grid interconnection rules and incentivizing centralized, fossil fuel - based power generation over renewable sources.

C. Technically, it is still possible to solve the climate problem, but there are two essential requirements: (1) a simple across - the - board (all fossil fuels) rising carbon fee [2] collected from fossil fuel companies at the domestic source (mine or port of entry), not a carbon price «scheme,» and the money must go to the public, not to government coffers, otherwise the public will not allow the fee to rise as needed for phase - over to clean energy, (2) honest government support for, rather than strangulation of, RD&D (research, development and demonstration) of clean energy technologies, including advanced generation, safe nuclear power.

«The only way I can explain the trend over time,» Hastings said, «are the nitric oxide sources, because we've introduced this whole new source — and that's fossil fuels burning.»

Renewable energy is projected to be the fastest growing source of primary energy over the next 25 years, but fossil fuels remain the dominant source of energy.

But with fossil fuels, the issue is no longer just about siting, choosing among sources carefully, or mitigating impacts after the fact; we must stop expanding their use immediately and categorically, and transition away from them over time.

For too long, oil companies have reaped massive profits through a monopoly over our transportation options, leaving people with few alternatives to fossil fuels — fuels which are by far Washington's largest source of climate and air pollution.

If the propaganda and articles generated by the industry are any indication there is serious concern by fossil fuel users over any attempts to impose limits on mercury emissions from coal burning sources.

Fossil fuels will be replaced by other energy sources, over time, in the same way as all previous major infrastructure technology transitions have occurred.

Major corporations like Apple, Google, and T - Mobile are all choosing renewable sources over dirty fossil fuels and it's clear that the renewable energy revolution is well underway.

Biomass is a renewable energy source not only because the energy in it comes from the sun, but also because biomass can re-grow over a relatively short period of time compared with the hundreds of millions of years that it took for fossil fuels to form.

While fossil fuels will account for most of the increased energy supply, renewable sources of energy will also gain importance, as a result of concerns over high fossil fuel prices, increasing greenhouse gas emissions and energy import dependence.

These remaining fossil fuels should last us at least 200 to 300 years (probably much longer, as they get replaced by other sources over the next centuries).

While fossil fuels will remain an important source of energy, renewable energies will also gain importance, as a result of concerns over high fossil fuel prices, increasing greenhouse gas emissions and energy import dependence.

Although variable renewable energy sources were critical to European society for some 500 years before fossil fuels took over, there were no chemical batteries, no electric transmission lines, and no balancing capacity of fossil fuel power plants to deal with the variable energy output of wind and water power.

Americans under the age of 50 are especially likely to support alternative energy sources over expanding fossil fuels.

By contrast, conservative Republicans back the expansion of fossil fuels over developing alternative energy sources by a margin of 54 % to 33 %.

That doesn't happen so much if people reduce fossil - fuel demand over the next few decades via efficiency and substitution of other energy sources, which doesn't happen overnight.

The views in the clips are extreme but represent a grab bag of climate science denialist talking points, ignoring the mountains of evidence gathered from multiple sources over many decades of the impacts of loading the atmosphere and the oceans with carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels.

But I simply can't dissemble with my ex-colleagues; the fossil fuels that we had so much fun (and profit) finding are the source of a major global problem and the industry we work (or worked) in has to close down over the next two or three decades.

Renewable, low - carbon and zero - carbon energy sources would be preferred and the reigning fossil fuels slowly edged out because of a lowered carbon cap over time.

Given historical climate and physics, the only way that implicit endorsement means «implicitly endors [ing] that humans are a cause of warming» where «a» is something less than primary (that is, over half) is if there is some as - yet undiscovered sink absorbing human CO2 emissions and, simultaneously, an as - yet undiscovered source of CO2 that is releasing it into the atmosphere - and moreover, the CO2 from this mysterious source just happens to possess a carbon isotope signature that matches fossil fuel CO2 as a total coincidence.

While there are many sources of emissions, burning fossil fuels has caused 75 % of these emissions over 20 years.

The «technology to eliminate fossil fuel combustion» includes solar and wind energy, geothermal energy, a variety of hydropower energy sources, combustion of biomass to generate electricity (an entirely different matter than liquid biofuels for transport) and more — ALL of which is already at hand, and already being deployed at both large and small scales all over the world.

No, he seems to mean that if we allow the Keystone XL to set a precedent — that we aim aim to develop dirtier, more expensive, unconventional fossil fuels instead of renewable sources — then it will be game over for the climate system as we know it.

RealClimate is wonderful, and an excellent source of reliable information.As I've said before, methane is an extremely dangerous component to global warming.Comment # 20 is correct.There is a sharp melting point to frozen methane.A huge increase in the release of methane could happen within the next 50 years.At what point in the Earth's temperature rise and the rise of co2 would a huge methane melt occur?No one has answered that definitive issue.If I ask you all at what point would huge amounts of extra methane start melting, i.e at what temperature rise of the ocean near the Artic methane ice deposits would the methane melt, or at what point in the rise of co2 concentrations in the atmosphere would the methane melt, I believe that no one could currently tell me the actual answer as to where the sharp melting point exists.Of course, once that tipping point has been reached, and billions of tons of methane outgass from what had been locked stores of methane, locked away for an eternity, it is exactly the same as the burning of stored fossil fuels which have been stored for an eternity as well.And even though methane does not have as long a life as co2, while it is around in the air it can cause other tipping points, i.e. permafrost melting, to arrive much sooner.I will reiterate what I've said before on this and other sites.Methane is a hugely underreported, underestimated risk.How about RealClimate attempts to model exactly what would happen to other tipping points, such as the melting permafrost, if indeed a huge increase in the melting of the methal hydrate ice WERE to occur within the next 50 years.My amateur guess is that the huge, albeit temporary, increase in methane over even three or four decades might push other relevent tipping points to arrive much, much, sooner than they normally would, thereby vastly incresing negative feedback mechanisms.We KNOW that quick, huge, changes occured in the Earth's climate in the past.See other relevent posts in the past from Realclimate.Climate often does not change slowly, but undergoes huge, quick, changes periodically, due to negative feedbacks accumulating, and tipping the climate to a quick change.Why should the danger from huge potential methane releases be vievwed with any less trepidation?

Moreover, unlike fossil fuels whose EROI necessarily gets worse over time, as the lowest - cost, highest - quality supplies are exhausted, the EROI of wind and solar gets better over time because the energy sources themselves are both free and inexhaustible, so the EROI is purely a function of the rapidly improving technology.

«Energy from gas power stations has been rebranded as a green, low - carbon source of power by a $ 80bn European Union program, in a triumph of the deep - pocketed fossil fuel industry lobby over renewable forms of power.

But then I went on to envisage, at least in my own mind, a time when large fossil fuel generators had all closed own — mainly in order to avoid ruining our one and only habitable planet — and that the 24/7 power supply would be a mix of Solar PV, solar thermal (eg CSP), wind and the lesser sources such as hydro, tidal, geothermal etc having taken over the complete electricity supply — especially since Australia doesn't have, and is almost certain never to have, nuclear fission plants.