Sentences with phrase «using less coal»

Both have set out plans to reduce emissions, especially by using less coal in the production of electricity.

Last year the Energy Information Administration noted that the «decline in coal - related emissions is due mainly to utilities using less coal for electricity generation as they burned more low - priced natural gas.»

But despite the fact that they are using less coal overall, the pace at which countries built new coal plants in 2015 was faster than it has been since 2011.

The United States clearly is using less coal: Domestic consumption fell by about 114 million tons, or 11 percent, largely due to a decline in the use of coal for electricity.

The decline in coal - related emissions is due mainly to utilities using less coal for electricity generation as they burned more low - priced natural gas.

If using a grill, you want a lower heat so use less coals.

The challenge is made tougher as we use less coal.

But there's mounting evidence that the U.S. — and even the world at large — may be deciding that it prefers to use less coal.

This might lead coal - rich countries to use less coal and more oil and gas, thus lowering their emissions.

Electricity Prices: How do electricity prices in states that use more coal compare with prices in states that use less coal?

Japan now boasts the world's most efficient coal - fired plant, which uses less coal to produce more electricity.

Not exact matches

Mild winters mean less home heating, lower natural gas prices and therefore lower coal use.

New research from North Carolina State University and the University of Colorado Boulder finds that steep declines in the use of coal for power generation over the past decade were caused largely by less expensive natural...

Coal used to be up close to 80, but it is less and less economic to run coal plants at aCoal used to be up close to 80, but it is less and less economic to run coal plants at acoal plants at all.)

Combination of economic trends and policies Still, for now an array of Obama administration actions and economic trends are conspiring to cut emissions, according to EIA: Americans are using less oil because of high gasoline prices; carmakers are complying with federal fuel economy standards; electricity companies are becoming more efficient; state renewable energy rules are ushering wind and solar energy onto the power grids; gas prices are competitive with coal; and federal air quality regulations are closing the dirtiest power plants.

In fact, much of the overall decrease in energy consumption can be traced to the shift from coal to gas, because modern gas - fired plants may use up to 46 percent less energy to produce the same amount of electricity.»

«The model is capturing the fact that you have a lot of low - cost opportunities to reduce coal, from heavy - industry direct use as well as the electric power sector, from facilities using less energy - efficient technology or processes.»

By FRED PEARCE The large enterprises that mine coal and drill for oil and gas face a world increasingly determined to use less of their products.

By adopting lighting technologies that use less energy the nations of the world will cut down on the fossil fuels, often coal, burned to produce that light.

If I recycle a bit more, if I make some energy efficiency, if I travel less, if I try to generate less carbon — what is the use of that when China is building another coal - fired power station next week?»

As these coal plants get used less and less, many will retire in the next few years.

China's massive jump in coal use - to 3.8 billion metric tons in 2012 from 2.5 billion metric tons in 2006 - drove prices of benchmark Asian thermal coal to average $ 121 a metric ton in 2011, from less than $ 50 five years earlier.

So it would cost less to insulate every home than to burn coal to provide the energy now used to heat and cool uninsulated houses.

With more money for development of novel designs and public financial support for construction — perhaps as part of a clean energy portfolio standard that lumps in all low - carbon energy sources, not just renewables or a carbon tax — nuclear could be one of the pillars of a three - pronged approach to cutting greenhouse gas emissions: using less energy to do more (or energy efficiency), low - carbon power, and electric cars (as long as they are charged with electricity from clean sources, not coal burning).

It hopes to make less use of coal - burning stations and more of combined - cycle gas - turbine stations.

Less work required to capture the same amount of CO2 results in lowering the cost of using CCUS technology, making coal - to - chemicals factories a promising sector to reduce carbon emissions.

Of the coal ash produced, less than.02 percent is recycled for agriculture production, Li said, making it one of the least used byproducts of coal combustion.

«With less than 5 percent of world population, the U.S. uses one - third of the world's paper, a quarter of the world's oil, 23 percent of the coal, 27 percent of the aluminum, and 19 percent of the copper,» he reports.

The new reductions will bring coal use in the city to less than 7 million tons this year, down from around 22 million tons in 2013

For example, a study by Vasilis Fthenakis and Hung Chul Kim of Columbia University (2009) found that, on a life - cycle electricity - output basis — including direct and indirect land transformation — utility - scale PV in the U.S. Southwest requires less land than the average U.S. power plant using surface - mined coal.

The process would also generate solid byproduct materials that leach less contaminants, making them more stable than the original coal fly ash used as feedstock for the process.

Shell states that tar sands are less damaging that coal: Well since when was coal and oil used to the same ends unless they are talking about widespread adaption of CTL technology which could happen in some countries with large scale coal rserves I guess but even I doubt that CTL projects will scale to 3 — 5 mbpd which is the projected output of Albertas oil sands come 2030.

Less commonly, countries spoke of reducing the use of inefficient coal - fired power plants, lowering methane emissions from oil and gas production, reforming fossil fuel subsidies, and carbon pricing, the report says.

None of the numbers regarding openings and closings are likely to matter in the long run because electric power companies are using less and less coal to generate electricity — the primary use of coal in the U.S.

Less understood — and more difficult to measure — is the influence of aerosol particles from human sources, particularly the use of coal and other fossil fuels.

02/07/2018 - While less new coal - fired power plants are now being built in China and India, the planned expansion in the use of coal in fast - growing emerging economies, such as Turkey, Indonesia and Vietnam, will in part cancel out the reduction.

A new report by the U.S. Energy Information Administration found that U.S. coal use is down 29 percent compared to 2007 levels, and nearly every state is using less of the environmentally destructive resource.

[166] The study considered the mix of power sources for 13 U.S. regions that would be used during recharging of vehicles, generally a combination of coal, natural gas and nuclear energy, and to a lesser extend renewable energy.

It was then used to power very big and inefficient steam engines that pumped water out of mines; when James Watt developed his steam engine that used 75 percent less coal than the Newcomen engine it replaced, the common thinking was that the increased efficiency meant that they would burn less coal.

The increasing proliferation of these tools has the potential to raise awareness among environmentally - minded people and perhaps bring pressure to bear upon utilities to use more renewable energy sources (or at least less coal mined from the tops of mountains!)

~ 13 times less than land use changes (3.4 gigatons) ~ 11.5 times less than light - duty vehicles (3.0 gigatons) ~ 5.3 times less than concrete production (1.4 gigatons) ~ 2 dozen 1000 MW coal - fired power plants (2 % of the world's coal - fired electrical generation) Or, roughly the same CO2 emissions as Pakistan, Kazakhstan, Poland or South Africa.

Cut the number of coal plants in USA / EU and just get people there to use a lot less electricity.

Researchers at Stanford University who closely track China's power sector, coal use, and carbon dioxide emissions have done an initial rough projection and foresee China possibly emitting somewhere between 1.9 and 2.6 billion tons less carbon dioxide from 2008 to 2010 than it would have under «business as usual» if current bearish trends for the global economy hold up.

When used to generate electricity, the shale - gas footprint is still significantly greater than that of coal at decadal time scales but is less at the century scale.

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.

If a country is a large enough player in coal export markets, then cutting back exports will increase prices for internationally traded coal, and hence give importers an incentive to use less.

I would be inclined to look for something less than «full exploitation» just as I would be inclined to look for moderate use of coal.

It seems that we have to strive to substitute non-emissions based methods for coal whenever possible so if substantial solar, for example, is in place, and less coal can be used while the solar is being effective then that would be good.

In May 2010, American Electric Power announced it planned to run 10 small coal - fired power units on a part - time basis starting in June as «the weak economy reduced demand and low natural gas prices have made the use of some coal units less profitable,» according to the company.

Since the countries with low cost power are burning coal while the countries with high cost power are using less CO2 intensive energy supplies, the net result is a gobal increase in CO2.