Sentences with phrase «time over fossil fuel»

American War paints a bleak future in which the North and South are warring for a second time in US history, this time over fossil fuel use in the year 2074.

Not exact matches

Fossil fuels and nuclear power have received eight times more government subsidies than wind and solar over the past six decades.

While this company's bond did not directly invest in increasing fossil fuel output, refineries are still processing fossil fuels and any investment in making refineries more efficient, as this bond is aiming to, will likely extend plant operating lifetimes and therefore indirectly increase emissions over time.

Such a plan could enable businesses to make their own plans knowing what the relative costs of fossil fuels, solar energy, and human labor are likely to be over time.

Over time, the majority of human fire use has shifted from indigenous burning to agricultural burning to fossil fuel burning.

FIGURE 1: Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Fossil Fuel and the Kyoto Challenge Carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels have risen over time but at rates that vary by region and circumstFossil Fuel and the Kyoto Challenge Carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels have risen over time but at rates that vary by region and circumstfossil fuels have risen over time but at rates that vary by region and circumstances.

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 New York Times and other outlets reported that Soon has received extensive financial support over the past decade from fossil fuel companies and others opposed to government regulation of greenhouse gas emissions — but has not always disclosed those financial links in his technical publications.

«Under a 20 - year period, fossil fuel methane is 87 times as much as CO2, over a 100 - year period it's 36 times as much.»

The study, funded by NASA and published today in Environmental Research Letters, is the first time scientists have been able to measure fossil fuel CO2 emissions over a large area like California.

So the overall cost spread over time would be roughly equal to the price of the fossil fuel infrastructure, maintenance and production.

Fossil fuels lack a type of radioactive carbon, an isotope called carbon - 14, which decays over time.

Over a long enough period of time, the increased carbon burial could help offset a small fraction of carbon emitted by human activities such as fossil fuel burning, says study coauthor Antje

Moreover, the research indicates that fossil fuel methane emissions do not seem to be increasing over time.

The CO2 pumped into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels today will hang around for centuries, building up over time and continuing to warm the planet.

The carbon cycle defines the fate of CO2 injected into the air by fossil fuel burning [1], [168] as the additional CO2 distributes itself over time among surface carbon reservoirs: the atmosphere, ocean, soil, and biosphere.

When trees in vast forests died during a time called the Carboniferous and the Permian, the carbon dioxide (CO2) they took up from the atmosphere while growing got buried; the plants» debris over time formed most of the coal that today is used as fossil fuel.

Osprey Lake of the Women's Earth and Climate Action Network (WECAN) in the United States, where the battle over the Keystone XL Pipeline and the development of the Alberta Tar Sands is raging, addressed the failure of the COP to deal with the central point of ending fossil fuel extraction: «With the COP taking place in Peru, it is the first time a UNFCCC meeting was held in an Amazon country.

The University of British Columbia (Established as a $ 10 million fund, donors may contribute to the fund over time, fossil fuel free)

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.

I just go to the section where they get into discussing Arctic seabed methane in more detail, and the conclusion of that section is actually: «In summary, the ocean methane hydrate pool has strong potential to amplify the human CO2 release from fossil fuel combustion over time scales of decades to centuries.»

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.

The discussion talks explicitly about how diminishing terrestrial and ocean carbon sinks over time require reduced CO2 emissions from fossil fuels / land use to achieve stabilization goals at various levels (e.g. 550 ppmv of CO2 in the atmosphere).

The point being we burned the fossil fuels because that was the most economical and over time it eventually became the only choice.

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.

And this will change over time — CO2 emissions should keep getting lower just from reducing fossil fuel usage in proportion to total energy use.

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.

This requires only limited quantities of fossil fuels, and is short term one off thing, and outweighed by less CO2 emissions over time.

Achieving a minimal fossil fuel society would be difficult in the developed world but definitely possible over time.

The transition away from fossil fuels will take some time, but over the last year and a half, we have already taken unprecedented action to jumpstart the clean energy industry.

Less well known is the immense potential of soils to act as vast carbon sinks, with the ability to «naturally turn over about 10 times more greenhouse gas on a global scale than the burning of fossil fuels.»

Since the design lifetime of most fossil fuel plants is of order 40 years, the world would be wise to opt for another generation of fossil fuels to continue the improvement of the lot of mankind, while making a more determined effort over a longer time to develop real workarounds to the currently perceived problem of carbon dioxide emissions.

According to the IEA, global fossil fuel consumption subsidies are over 4 times higher than global renewable subsidies.

Given evolution over the past 500 million years when virtually all modern emerged and radiated largely occurred while the planet had no polar ice caps and atmospheric CO2 up to ten times current level, and the planet was green from pole to pole, and life did so well it was able to sequester huge amounts of energy in fossil fuel beds.

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.

The biggest failing of the economic models that predict ruin is that they are unable to account for the industries that will, over time, grow to replace the fossil - fuel based industries.

«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.»

But over time, as the world increasingly realizes that fossil fuel expansion has no place in a world where we plan for success in addressing climate change, we can expect other financial institutions — both public and private — to follow their lead.

Government giveaways in the form of permanent tax breaks to the fossil fuel industry — one of which is over a century old — are seven times larger than those to the renewable energy sector.

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.

They report that stopping deforestation and allowing young secondary forests to grow back could establish a «forest sink» — an area that absorbs carbon dioxide rather than releasing it into the atmosphere — which by 2100 could grow by over 100 billion metric tons of carbon, about ten times the current annual rate of global fossil fuel emissions.

While the above analysis yields good results for by tying past climate change to increases in human CO2 emissions, it should be cautioned that the suggested exponential time relation is not suitable for projecting the future over longer time periods, because of possible changes in human population growth rates and absolute limitations on carbon available in remaining fossil fuels.

Once we have removed those impediments we can have nuclear power cheaper than fossil fuels * (over time).

We've only had 0.8 C warming since humanity started burning fossil fuels and we're already committed over the next 100 years to another 0.6 C warming with what's already in the atmosphere because of the huge time lags in the climate system.

Over the same time period, humans have consumed roughly 15 % of ALL the fossil fuel resources that WERE EVER on our planet (based on WEC estimates of inferred possible total fossil fuel resources today and CDIAC estimates of fossil fuel use to date).

It has also increased over time, as measures to improve energy efficiency and reduce waste plus pollution have been implemented, and there is no doubt that this improvement will continue, partly as a result of increasing fossil fuel prices and other market - driven considerations.

The analysis shows that London currently has 105.5 GtCO2 of fossil fuel reserves listed on its exchange, over ten times the UK's domestic carbon budget for 2011 to 2050, of around 10 GtCO2.

And since it looks like all fossil fuels will be used up over the next 150 to 200 years, that sets the timing for this climate change to reach its maximum (possibly «catastrophic») level.

The New York Times writes «He has accepted more than $ 1.2 million in money from the fossil - fuel industry over the last decade while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers.»

So in that time period, the US favored «subsidies» to fossil fuels (including the Strategic Oil Reserve, which I guess will count as a negative subsidy this year) over renewables by a ratio of ~ 2.5:1.