Sentences with phrase «than fossil fuels because»

These plant - based fuels were originally billed as better than fossil fuels because the carbon released when they were burned was balanced by the carbon absorbed when the plants grew.

Fuel price is far more stable than fossil fuels because the fuels is effectively unlimited and the fuel price is effectively irrelevant anyway because it comprises only about 5 % of the cost of nuclear generated electricity.

Not exact matches

The world added more energy from renewable sources than from fossil fuels in 2015 and 2016 — because they finally became cost effective.

JULIANI: Saying that we shouldn't move to a clean energy economy because there are more fossil fuel jobs is like saying we shouldn't have gone from the horse and buggy to the automobile because we had more farriers than we had auto mechanics.

In short, the analysis showed that storing solar energy today offers fewer environmental benefits than just sending it straight to the grid, because the energy lost to storage inefficiencies is ultimately made up with fossil - fuel electricity from the grid.

When it's not horrific mining accidents like the one in Soma, Turkey, on May 13 that killed more than 300 miners, it's the 13,000 Americans who die early each year because of air pollution from burning the dirtiest fossil fuel.

That's been the goal of solar panel makers for a long time, because as those prices decline electricity from the sun costs the same as, or is even cheaper than electricity from burning fossil fuels.

«When it comes to life cycle greenhouse gas emissions, wind and solar energy provide a much better greenhouse gas balance than fossil - based low carbon technologies, because they do not require additional energy for the production and transport of fuels, and the technologies themselves can be produced to a large extend with decarbonized electricity,» states Edgar Hertwich, an industrial ecologist from Yale University who co-authored the study.

But calculating the costs associated with premature death caused by air pollution is complex and has resulted in very different estimates: because of the different methodologies used, the cost of air pollution related to fossil fuel consumption is estimated to be three times higher in the US than the EU.

In a letter being delivered to the White House on Thursday, nearly 400 scientists from more than a dozen countries are urging President Obama to stop future oil and gas drilling in the Arctic Ocean because of the significant environmental and climate risks associated with further fossil fuels exploration there.

In India, Rogers discovered that carbon offset ventures were doing more harm than good because carbon offset money discourages certain countries from investing in wind or solar power and continues their reliance on fossil fuels.

Feed - in tariffs would also have the effect of lowering the consumer's costs for renewable energy, which would only grow cheaper over time, as more and more manufacturing capacity was built — because under equivalent economies of scale, renewables are definitely cheaper than fossil fuels.

-- We contend that a forcing much smaller than 0.85 W / m2 is unlikely, because fossil fuels are expected to be the primary energy source for at least several decades.

This is no surprise because fossil fuels have lower 13C / 12C ratios than the atmosphere.

What about hydropower, which is billed as a sustainable form of electricity generation because it produces far fewer greenhouse gas emissions than fossil fuels?

One article I was recently reading stated that hemp seed oil produces a cleaner buring fuel (nearly 90 % burn, with considerably less ash and CO2 production) than any fossil fuel (33 % burn at the most efficient) and was actually banned because the oil industry (and the rope industry, as hemp weave made a stronger and less expensive rope than current materials) decided to push their congresscritters to close it down because hemp could make Marijuana.

Because currently it takes more fossil fuel energy footprint to make and dispose of the solar cells than they produce.

However, it is important to keep in mind that we might easily more than double it if we really don't make much effort to cut back (I think the current estimated reserves of fossil fuels would increase CO2 by a factor of like 5 or 10, which would mean a warming of roughly 2 - 3 times the climate sensitivity for doubling CO2 [because of the logarithmic dependence of the resulting warming to CO2 levels]-RRB-... and CO2 levels may be able to fall short of doubling if we really make a very strong effort to reduce emissions.

I suspect that we will be hearing a lot more about hydrogen cars too; the fossil fuel companies might well fund a fake «hydrogen economy» because the cheapest hydrogen is made by steam reforming of natural gas; people think that this is somehow better than just running a car on CNG.

It really points to very serious widespread problems in the U.S. academic and journalistic professions — you can't do research on renewable energy in the U.S. academic system, because of fossil fuel influence, and you can't get honest coverage of renewable energy initiatives in the U.S. press, also because of undue influence by vested interests — and more often than not these days, those vested interests are in finance, not in industry.

When energy consumers, like Japan's gov» t, decide that it's better to spend a bit more money on limitless and safe ethanol, solar, wind, water, or geothermal power than on limited and dangerous fossil fuels, then the energy industry will change because it must.

There is a raging battle today about the size of fossil fuel reserves and resources, with «peakists» claiming that we are already at or near peak production of both oil and coal because the amounts of economically recoverable fuels in the ground are more limited than the fossil fuel industry has admitted.

I understand it is because in the last few years the temperature of the Earth has actually cooled so, rather than lose the momentum they had gained to make political inroads to underwrite global measures to control societies» behaviors when it comes to things like use of fossil fuels, proponents decided to cut their losses and change the term so they wouldn't be obviously wrong to the masses as it snowed on various global warming rallies.

The team also observed that GHG Avoided [GHGA = (1 - GHGI) · (lifecycle GHG emissions for the displaced fossil fuels] for BTL - RC - CCS is 56 % higher than that of EtOH - CCS largely because 56 % of the biomass carbon is stored underground for BTL - RC - CCS compared to only 15 % for EtOH - CCS.

The Way Forward As China seeks a cleaner, softer path of development, renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, and geothermal are attractive not only because of their lower carbon emissions profiles, but because they use far less water than their fossil fuel counterparts.

Because electricity and heat account for 41 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions, curbing climate change will require satisfying much of that demand with renewables rather than fossil fuels.

This was very bad news because «The increase alone is greater than the whole German economy emits annually from fossil fuels.»

Summing up the lack of forward planning about wind turbines physicists and environmental activist, John Droz, jr, warns, «just because a power source is an alternative, or a renewable, does NOT automatically mean that it is better than any conventional or fossil fuel source.»

The authors contend the world's economies are heavily dependent on fossil fuels because such fuels are and will continue to be safer, less expensive, more reliable, and of vastly greater supply than alternative fuels such as wind and solar.

If and when we are forced to move to these power sources because the fossil fuels have really run out, we can build them all in less than a decade.

That effectively stopped the project dead in its tracks, because for the foreseeable future, biofuels will be more expensive than fossil fuels since industry has to do all the work that Mother Nature did for free over the eons.

Some people say that solar is better than fossil because it «creates jobs», but if there were no problems with fossil fuels, why not just use them and just mail some random people a check every month?

But if you use the argument that nuclear is too expensive because it is 12 % higher cost than fossil fuels, can you tell me how much more expensive is the synthetic biology fuel you are advocating than current fuel prices (delivered to the consumer)?

Environmentalists argue that the oil sands should be left in the ground, because they produce much more carbon than other fossil fuels.

The reason both countries, who have large readily available coal reserves are so heavily reliant on fossil fueled electricity generation is because, without carbon pricing, it's slightly cheaper than nuclear power.

Annual water requirements of a PHES - supported 100 % renewable electricity grid would be much less than the current fossil fuel system, because wind and PV do not require cooling water.

The «pollution paradigm» of climate change limits the opportunities for addressing or solving the issue, in part because fossil fuel emissions make up such a small fraction of the annual flux of CO2 into the atmosphere (less than 3 %).

It can't happen, even if we burn all the fossil fuels, because we can't get to a higher level of CO2 than originally existed when the fossil fuels were created.

That's because it uses the free renewable solar energy stored in your backyard rather than burning fossil fuels.

But the implication is that the current drought may be worse than normal because of the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere by the combustion of fossil fuels on a colossal scale: the researchers make the link only tentatively.

Fossil fuels are much more practical than renewables for the simple reason that fossil fuels allow not only access to the energy, but to the energy on demand because fossil fuels represent stored energy while renewables solar and wind represent only flux but not stFossil fuels are much more practical than renewables for the simple reason that fossil fuels allow not only access to the energy, but to the energy on demand because fossil fuels represent stored energy while renewables solar and wind represent only flux but not stfossil fuels allow not only access to the energy, but to the energy on demand because fossil fuels represent stored energy while renewables solar and wind represent only flux but not stfossil fuels represent stored energy while renewables solar and wind represent only flux but not storage.

«Smart investors can already see that most fossil fuel reserves are essentially unburnable because of the need to reduce emissions in line with the global agreement by governments to avoid global warming of more than 2 °C.

These sources of energy and efficiency technologies are in many cases cheaper than fossils, have steep cost curves, produce a positive ROI for businesses and consumers, are anti-inflationary because they don't use a commodity fuel or consume less fuel, have the ability to decentralize and stabilize energy supply.

This means a duplication of capacity and more than doubling of the costs (because the renewable energy generators are much higher cost than the fossil fuel generators which are essential back up and could do the job on their own).

The implication is that even though other teams have repeatedly warned that the world's reefs are in peril as the world warms because of ever - greater ratios of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, as a consequence of human combustion of fossil fuels at a profligate rate, the world's great reefs may survive for perhaps another century, rather than perish within the next 50 years.

Lacis did not like the use of «very likely» by the AR4 report because to him it is obvious first that the CO2 increase is more than accounted for by fossil fuel emissions, and second that the global temperature rise is more than accounted for by the expected effects of increased CO2.

For the minority who use common sense, very little data is necessary to know that a «low carbon» economy is far less efficient than an economy run on fossil fuel energy [coal, preferably, because it is the least expensive power].

That richer, fairer, cooler, safer world is possible, practical, even profitable - because saving and replacing fossil fuels now works better and costs no more than buying and burning them.

Taylor dismissed the idea that his group pushed for the measure because it has accepted money from fossil - fuel firms: «The people who are saying that are trying to take attention away from the real issue — that alternative energy, renewable energy, is more expensive than conventional energy.»

Earth 2 will also be poorer than us because fossil fuel energy there will be more expensive than cheap renewables here.