Sentences with phrase «to replace fossil fuels»

I am trying to increase safety of electricity generation by replacing fossil fuel with nuclear.

The net effect is a strong incentive for consumers, business people, and entrepreneurs to find ways to replace fossil fuel energy with clean energy and energy efficiency.

It seems clear that there will be no single source that can replace fossil fuels in the long run and no basket of sources that will replace them in the short term.

The big question is, what can we use to replace fossil fuels as an energy source?

Wind can provide an excellent supplement to fossil fuels, but it's impossible to fully replace fossil fuels using current turbine technology.

We don't yet have the technological breakthroughs that could completely replace fossil fuels.

We simply do not have low - carbon technologies today that can at large scale replace fossil fuels at a cost that any political economy in the world is willing to impose upon itself.

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

For some time now, energy experts have been adamant that we will need much more clean energy in the future if we are to replace fossil fuel sources and reduce CO2 emissions.

Your ill - conceived «renewable» projects are highly unlikely to generate enough energy to even replace the fossil fuel technologies you want to abandon let alone provide more energy.

In practice, we wouldn't be able to replace fossil fuel infrastructure fast enough, even if the political will was there.

It all depends on price / performance, with a multitude of new technologies vying to eventually replace fossil fuels.

We must rapidly transition from fossil fuels to 100 % renewable energy, replacing fossil fuel jobs with jobs in renewable energy and energy efficiency.

If the waste heat is used to heat buildings to replace fossil fuels then there is at least a 30 % additional advantage.

A couple of decades ago, the notion that renewable energy could possibly replace fossil fuels was considered irrational, as many argued it would hinder the American electric grid reliability.

We have only recently reached the technological advancement necessary to big replacing fossil fuels.

Growing crops for fuel — known as biofuels — represents another potential way of cutting GHGs by replacing fossil fuels (biofuels created underground by nature over millions of years).

Given the huge task of replacing fossil fuels, contributions are surely required from energy efficiency, renewable energies, and nuclear power, with the mix depending on local preferences.

An example: a wind power opponent states that fossil fuels are needed to build a wind farm, therefore his case that wind power does not replace fossil fuels is proven.

We still need to reduce carbon emissions and replace fossil fuels with renewable energy sources.

Experts agree we need a substantial reduction in CO2 over the next 40 - 50 years and this means we need renewable energy to replace fossil fuels now.

But a comprehensive study of nuclear power plant construction costs published in Energy Policy last year found that water - cooled nuclear reactors (which are far less expensive than non-water-cooled designs) are already cheap enough to quickly replace fossil fuel power plants.

And how could the renewable energy sector receive the supports and protections it needed to replace fossil fuels when «protectionism» had been made a dirty word?

Another thought - provoking essay is that of Charles Forsberg, a nuclear engineer at MIT, which argues that «By working in tandem with renewable energies, nuclear power can help ensure a low - carbon future...» Too often, advocates for nuclear power (such as Dr. Forsberg) and advocates for renewables are given to lengthy (even obsessive) attacks on «the other low - carbon sector,» as if replacing fossil fuels was a zero - sum game.

The New England power grid is rapidly changing as energy efficiency and wind and solar power increasingly replace fossil fuels, and natural gas replaces more expensive coal and oil.

«It would be unfortunate to replace fossil fuels only to find that their successors are also damaging»

If we are serious about replacing fossil fuels, we are going to need nuclear power, so the choice is stark: We can keep on merely talking about a carbon - free world, or we can go ahead and create one.

It remains one of the greatest ironies of the environmental movement that those most concerned with global warming, like Ms. Collard, are opposed to nuclear energy, the only non-greenhouse gas - emitting power source that can effectively replace fossil fuels while satisfying Canada's growing demand for energy.