Sentences with phrase «than a coal plant»

They found that because natural gas plants are overall more efficient than coal plants, producing more energy per unit of carbon, they could cause less warming in the long term.

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.

I think «most people» do require that nuclear be 10 or 100 times safer than a coal plant, in the sense of the plant itself being incredibly reliable with the dangerous materials it deals with.

China will need to generate more power from wind and other renewables than its coal plants produce now.

Look beyond decades of carbon capture deficit, though, and you'll see biomass plants that release a bit more greenhouse gasses — as in 50 percent more CO2 and nitrous oxide than coal plants, and (across all pollutant categories) eight times more than a natural gas plant.

Wind energy creates 30 % more jobs than a coal plant and 66 % more than a nuclear power plant per unit of energy generated.

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

Not exact matches

Estimates vary widely on just how much methane is leaked from the vast network of oil and gas wells, pipelines and processing plants, but the problem has cast doubt on how much better natural gas is than coal for the environment.

This will help to save more than one million tons of CO2 when compared with a «conventional» coal fired plant.

Perry has repeatedly said that storing fuel on site makes coal and nuclear plants less prone to shutdowns than other power generators in the event of disasters and attacks.

RICHMOND, Va. (AP)-- Dominion Energy Virginia said Tuesday that it plans to build at least eight new natural gas - fired plants during the next 15 years, cementing its shift away from coal, while depending on renewables for less than 10 percent of its energy capacity.

Regulations that affect proposed new coal plants in the U.S. are therefore likely to have a larger overall impact on GHG emissions than Canadian regulations.

OTTAWA — The federal Liberal government says its new regulations to phase out power plants fired by coal and natural gas will cost more than $ 2.2 billion, but potentially save the country billions more in reduced health care costs.

And it could mean a future viable source of energy that emits no pollution or radioactivity, burns no fossil fuels, and could be no more expensive to run than conventional coal or electric power plants.

These forward - looking companies recognize that using natural gas, efficiency, and renewable energy are more profitable than retrofitting coal - fired plants — which are seen as being obsolete, inefficient, and highly polluting.

GREG WARREN: With coal fired and natural gas plants continuing to generate around two thirds of the nation's electricity and renewables accounting to less than 10 percent, there remains plenty of room for growth.

A pound of dioxin from chlorine bleaching in a pulp mill is far more dangerous than a pound of sulfur dioxide from a coal - burning power plant that runs a washing machine.

That means China's entire continuing coal fleet could be more efficient than any existing U.S. coal plant, according to a report released in May by the liberal Center for American Progress.

Extracting CO2 from traditional coal plants is much less efficient than from gasification plants, where coal is first turned to a gas and reacted with water to form CO2 and hydrogen.

Maxwell Ball, manager for clean coal technologies at SaskPower in Regina, which owns the plant, says that the company was surprised to learn that it would be cheaper in the long term to keep burning coal at Boundary Dam and sell the carbon dioxide to oil companies to boost production in the oil field than to build a new natural - gas plant.

The scrubbers are a commonly used method for decreasing carbon emissions from industries such as coal - fired power plants, which produce more than 14 billion metric tons of carbon each year.

Of course, right next door to Mountaineer is the Philip Sporn Power Plant, whose multiple smokestacks and four smaller boilers show no visible signs of activity other than coal continually being added to its sprawling pile.

The EPA - proposed rules apply to existing coal - fired power plants and would be implemented by executive order rather than as law.

But there are technology options on the horizon that might allow for future coal - fired power plants to avoid the average emissions of more than four million metric tons of carbon dioxide every year per plant.

As a general clarification, ounce for ounce, coal ash released from a power plant delivers more radiation than nuclear waste shielded via water or dry cask storage.

For many Africans and Africa observers, the massive Medupi and Kusile coal plants being built by South Africa's Eskom at a cost of more than $ 20 billion, or the 6,000 - MW Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam under construction on the Blue Nile River for an estimated $ 4 billion, are hallmarks of the continent's progress toward electrification.

Yet U.S. coal - fired power plants produce more than 30 times more CO2 than Albertan oil sands facilities — 45 million metric tons of greenhouse gases versus nearly two billion metric tons.

Among the surprising conclusions: the waste produced by coal plants is actually more radioactive than that generated by their nuclear counterparts.

The spread of urban centers increases the demand for electricity, more than 75 percent of which in China is generated from coal - fired power plants.

«Other risks like being hit by lightning,» he adds, «are three or four times greater than radiation - induced health effects from coal plants.»

The sentence marked with an asterisk was changed from «In fact, fly ash — a by - product from burning coal for power — and other coal waste contains up to 100 times more radiation than nuclear waste» to «In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant — a by - product from burning coal for electricity — carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy.»

Currently, nuclear and wind energy (as well as clean coal) are between 25 and 75 percent more expensive than old - fashioned coal at current prices (not including all the hidden health and environmental costs of coal), and so it will take a stiff charge on coal to induce rapid replacement of obsolete plants.

Even the oil sands ultimate consumption in a gasoline, diesel or jet engine only results in 500 kilograms of CO2 - equivalent per barrel of refined petroleum products, meaning total oil sands emissions from well to wheel are considerably lower than those of this nation's more than 500 power plants burning coal to generate electricity.

After the public soured on nuclear power following Japan's 2011 Fukushima disaster, a previous administration even decided to build new coal - fired power plants rather than turn to renewable energy, Yun says.

About half of all our electricity comes from more than 500 coal - fired plants.

Much of that comes from power plants that burn coal or natural gas — emitting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, even more than was captured.

THE world added more solar capacity in 2017 than all new coal, gas and nuclear electricity - generating plants combined.

«Emissions of particulate matter pumped into the air every single day by coal - fired power plants have greater potential human health impacts than any of the other chemicals we examined.»

In the short term, new gas - fired power stations can help cut emissions, but only if they replace existing coal - fired power stations rather than nuclear plants or renewable energy sources.

Yang, who focuses on emerging economies, said her research also has shown that many other fast - growing developing countries have lower coal plant standards than India and China, and few incentives to build cleaner plants.

To get as many renewables as possible operating on the grid, these renewables are much different again in characteristic than the current generation mix in that we have primarily base - load plants that are operating over long periods of time that don't vary much, like a coal plant, for example.

In fact, if one of today's plug - ins draws its juice from a current coal - burning power plant, then overall it will cause slightly more carbon dioxide to be released into the air than a standard hybrid.

Getting energy directly from this year's plant crop, in the form of biofuels, is cleaner and more efficient than getting it from coal or oil, but Dukes found that if we tried to supply current worldwide energy demand entirely from biofuels, it would consume at least 22 percent of the production of all land - based plants annually.

For power plants, burning natural gas is cleaner than coal and dirtier than wind, solar and hydropower.

«We are heating the salts to more than 1,000 degrees F and that results in the same inlet conditions that utilities see today on a coal - fired or nuclear power plant,» says Terry Murphy, SolarReserve's president.

So one interesting factoid in the article is that although that huge land mass that we are talking about seems just, you know, mind boggling, according to the article, it's actually less land [than] that's [what's] required to run 300 equivalent energy output coal plants.

Coal - burning power plants in the United States emit about 2.1 billion tons of carbon dioxide each year — nearly 17 percent of worldwide coal emissions — and finding technologies that reduce those emissions in the United States and China, which burns even more coal than we do, is crucial to combating global warmCoal - burning power plants in the United States emit about 2.1 billion tons of carbon dioxide each year — nearly 17 percent of worldwide coal emissions — and finding technologies that reduce those emissions in the United States and China, which burns even more coal than we do, is crucial to combating global warmcoal emissions — and finding technologies that reduce those emissions in the United States and China, which burns even more coal than we do, is crucial to combating global warmcoal than we do, is crucial to combating global warming.

By their estimations, coal - fired power plants coming online since the turn of the millennium will emit more CO2 than all other human coal burning has since the dawn of the industrial age: 660 billion metric tons over their 50 - year lifetime versus 524 billion metric tons between 1751 and 2000.

The Department of Energy estimated in May 2007 that a new power plant burning pulverized coal and equipped with amine scrubbers to capture 90 percent of the CO2 would make electricity at a cost of more than $ 114 per megawatt - hour (compared with just $ 63 per MWh without CO2 capture).

Changes in forest management and agricultural practices could significantly reduce the threat of global warming much more quickly than can technological solutions such as carbon capture and storage (CCS) from coal - fired power plants, according to experts.