Sentences with phrase «than fossil fuels do»

Of course alternatives to fossil fuels cost more than fossil fuels do, provided you neglect the environmental impact of fossil fuels.

Not exact matches

Making Solar Cheaper Than Fossil Fuels In the long run, all this wrangling with utilities won't do Rive much good if he can't beat them on price.

``... to wean our economy off its overreliance on high - cost carbon fuels...» And how do you propose to do this with fossil fuels representing more than 80 % of the energy budget?

It also was the only U.S. oil major to do more than dabble in energy not derived from fossil fuels.

-- Green Party gubernatorial candidate Howie Hawkins, who also attended the rally, says the Green Party wants to get off fossil fuels 20 years earlier than Nixon does, by 2030.

«Divesting from fossil fuel stocks doesn't solve the problem, but it sends a huge message that government and its citizens should not be investing in the type of fuel that we know increase the problems we face rather than decrease and reverse the outcome of climate change.»

«It's clear to me that no technology will do more than nuclear to reduce our use of 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.

The earths heat is just a few KM's further down than coal and oil, does nt the use of fossil fuels seem stupid by comparison?

A study projects 130 future cancer deaths from the meltdowns at the reactors in Fukushima last year, but does that suggest nuclear power is safer than fossil fuel alternatives?

We are never going to go back to having 50 percent of America farming but we definitely need more than 1 percent of America farming if we're going to do [with] out vast quantities of fossil fuel, which we can no longer for many reasons continue to do, and I think that will be altogether healthy, and I think there'll be lots of people who will enjoy it immensely.

The burning of Indonesia's tropical peatlands contributed more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere than the vast majority of countries did from fossil fuels in 2015.

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.

If it takes 100 plus years to double the concentration of CO2, and if the equilibrium response is a 2C increase (Pierrehumbert, «Principles of Planetary Climate», p 623), and if the increased CO2 produces increased vegetation and crop growth, then the present rate of development of non-fossil fuel power and fuel generation is more appropriate than an Apollo type project or attempt to get rid of all fossil fuel use by 2050 starting now as fast as can be done.

Failure to do that amounts to a massive public subsidy to fossil fuels, which is why they appear to be (but actually are not) «cheaper» than renewable energy.

What I find ironic is that it is his can - do optimism that is in this case working against our ability to do something about our dependence on fossil fuels and the climate change that this dependence is resulting in, that is, switching to alternate energy, preserving modern civilization and the world economy beyond Peak Oil and Peak Coal, preventing climate change from becoming such a huge problem that it destroys that the world economy — and more than likely leads to a series of highly destructive wars over limited resources.

AC at 78 wrote: «If there are bubbles of methane here and there boosting the local CH4 concentration spectacularly but which on the global level amount to less than 3 % of the effect of CO2 emissions from fossil fuels, what does it matter really?»

As you know, the largely underplayed message of the I.P.C.C. report, which I wrote about but didn't get much coverage elsewhere, is that the atmosphere and climate won't notice the difference between a Gore - style immediate emissions freeze or a pedal - to - the - metal fossil - fuel party for more than 20 years.

To intentionally misquote Mr. McGuire in the»67 film The Graduate, «There's a great future in bioplastics,» but the problem is that some bioplastics can contain petro - based plastics as well, which might reduce the overall amount of fossil fuel - based plastics, while inadvertently creating more waste by allowing consumers to treat these bioplastics more casually than they do traditional plastics.

If there are bubbles of methane here and there boosting the local CH4 concentration spectacularly but which on the global level amount to less than 3 % of the effect of CO2 emissions from fossil fuels, what does it matter really?

[Andy Revkin — They «recognize» and «promote» the importance of energy sources other than fossil fuels, but don't specify any steps to accelerate a transition to a renewable energy and away from unfettered combustion of coal and oil.

Renewable energy currently tends to have higher up - front costs than fossil fuel - based power systems do, but in the long run equipment depreciation is lower and the fuel (sunlight and wind) is free, thus any honest cost analysis over the lifetime of the power - generating equipment will conclude that solar is cheapest, wind second, nuclear third, and fossil fuels are unworkable in the long run due to the global warming issue.

-- Every human appears to have 10, 20 or more horses yoked with him (the primemovers that burn fossil fuels and make our current lives comfortable) which consume oxygen and spew out far more carbon - dioxide than man would do alone.

Demonstrating that the overall environmental damage is less than that from coal does not imply that gas production and use is cost - free, and the sooner we reduce our dependence on fossil fuel sources of energy of all kinds the better.

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.

The energy storage density in these solutions is much less than fossil fuels and with what energy source do you manufacture the H2?

Hank (356), I haven't yet read the paper but a couple of thoughts from your excerpt don't seem intuitively obvious: 1) why would CO2 coming from burning fossil fuel be more forcing than CO2 from any other source.

There is more fossil fuel carbon available than the size of the terrestrial biosphere, including soil carbon, so I didn't bother with it.

Just like the Europeans have managed to use 50 % less fossil fuels than we do to create their equally good lifestyles, Californians have lead the nation in living the good life on less electricity.

The potential for efficiency remains enormous, and given the likely improvements in technology and changes in societal norms over the next century which it will take us to do the right thing, we are likely to be able to cut fossil fuel use further than most people imagine possible, even if renewables don't become commercially competitive (which wind is already, and solar is in certain situations).

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.

At least that way you can convince smokers that cigarettes do not cause cancer rather than trying to convince NY Times readers that burning fossil fuels has no impact on Earth's climate.

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't reduce our dependence on fossil fuels as soon as possible, be it more for geopolitical reasons and pollution reduction than for fear for a runaway warming...

«Beneath Siberia's snow may lie geologic formations that hold vast deposits of fossil fuels, as well as mineral resources» as if they didn't have drills that get through ice and like Canada, prefer to work on ice than on mud.

Their critics say their stance, however well intentioned, will produce the real delays, given how much can be done now simply by cutting energy waste with tools already on the shelf — ranging from strengthening efficiency standards to eliminating billions of dollars in persistent fossil - fuel subsidies that continue to make coal and oil much cheaper than they really are when all their hidden costs are revealed.

This would serve multiple purposes, of (a) weaning us from dependence on foreign oil and simultaneously depleting terror - exporting countries of their revenue stream, (b) reducing other pollutants besides CO2, (c) encouraging a more gradual and less economically disastrous transition from an economony based on a finite resource, (d) slow global warming, (e) move us in the direction of a VAT tax rather than an income tax (actually, personally I don't think e is such a great thing, but as many conversative groups favor it, I don't see why they would oppose a revenue - neutral tax on fossil fuels.

The radiative forcing right after the release would be similar to that from fossil fuel CO2 by the end of the century, but subsiding quickly rather than continuing to grow as business - as - usual CO2 does.

We need to do a «full court press» to switch from fossil fuels and nuclear (which also releases heat into water on a large scale, and supports nuclear military programs), using existing and near - commercialization battery, solar and wind technology, and design systems to cost - effectively convert the existing 600 - million - plus vehicle fleet rather than waiting for replacement.

If climate sensitivity is higher than thought as so much evidence keeps suggesting recently, when do actually take this seriously and just stop using fossil fuels on a personal and general level?

If a policy prescription does not account for the real complexity in the climate system, and real gaps in knowledge about aspects of global warming that matter most, is it likely that the public and lawmakers will pursue a big transformation of lifestyles and economic norms to curb CO2 emissions in a growing world still more than 85 percent dependent on burning fossil fuels to drive economies?

Nader said, «We do not need nuclear power... We have a far greater amount of fossil fuels in this country than we're owning up to... the tar sands... oil out of shale... methane in coal beds...» Sierra Club consultant Amory Lovins said, «Coal can fill the real gaps in our fuel economy with only a temporary and modest (less than twofold at peak) expansion of mining.»

However, you don't want to argue for a rational solution — i.e. cheap nuclear power (which also happens to be 10 to 100 times safer than our currently accepted main source of electricity generation, fossil fuel) and also happens to be a near zero emission technology (in fact much lower than renewables given they need fossil fuel backup, and given solar needs about 10 times as much material per TWh on an LCA basis).

Rather than promote the solar revolution in the US, the fossil fuel industry «is doing all that it can to stop its growth.»

If they do, rather than calling for the unrealistic «end of the fossil fuel era,» they'd call on the «climate aid» to be spent on «improved public health, education and economic development,» as recommended by noted economist Bjorn Lomborg.

«The fossil fuel industry and its shills are willing to exploit any crisis and go to any lengths in their effort to extract more dirty fuels and dismantle critical climate policies,» said Erich Pica, president of Friends of the Earth U.S. «Rather than promoting dirty fossil fuels like tar sands and fracked natural gas, Obama and Barroso should be doing everything they can to keep these fuels in the ground and help avert climate catastrophe.»

(2a: Why does solar power cost so much more than power from fossil fuels?)

When it does, more than $ 20 trillion worth of fossil fuel reserves will become stranded assets and the companies» value will plummet.

For example, in Germany, a leader in the energy transition, renewable energy industries already employ more workers than the long - standing fossil fuel and nuclear industries do.

Mandates and subsidies for fossil - fuel intensive biofuels such as corn - derived ethanol are so large that eliminating or reducing them would almost certainly do more than a carbon tax to curb these fuels» artificial price advantage.

The fossil fuel companies will pass the cost on to customers, but the person doing better than average in limiting fossil fuel use will make money.