Sentences with phrase «with coal and nuclear»

First 3,200 residents were phoned and asked to rate various risks they associated with both coal and nuclear power generation.

Consultancy firm McKinsley says that PV prices will reach grid parity with coal and nuclear as soon as 2020.

As many countries become less enamored with coal and nuclear power, they are embracing an array of clean, renewable energies.

Tennessee uses hydroelectric power with coal and nuclear power to keep the lights on for its residents, who use more electricity per capita than any other state, according to the NRDC.

The ridges surrounding our little desert metropolis display something on the order of 400 1 megawatt wind turbines, built primarily by private capitol with the incentive of a 1.5 cent per kwhour subsidy for wind power (which is about how close wind power is to being competitive with coal and nuclear power at this time).

Not exact matches

That dynamic is perhaps clearest with Energy Secretary Rick Perry calling for subsidies to keep coal and nuclear plants open late last year.

NEW YORK, April 1 - FirstEnergy Corp said late on Saturday its nuclear and coal power plant units filed for bankruptcy court protection as the company looks to restructure, sell assets and win government support to cope with competitors using lower - cost natural gas.

Rogers said he thinks that energy in 2039 will be a dynamic mix of coal, solar, wind, gas, nuclear and oil, with no one power source dominating.

With high oil prices persistently poised to derail the global economy, with large economies like Germany and Japan swearing off nuclear in the wake of the Fukushima Daiichi disaster, with coal hampered by looming emissions caps, unexpectedly abundant gas seems poised to fill the energy vWith high oil prices persistently poised to derail the global economy, with large economies like Germany and Japan swearing off nuclear in the wake of the Fukushima Daiichi disaster, with coal hampered by looming emissions caps, unexpectedly abundant gas seems poised to fill the energy vwith large economies like Germany and Japan swearing off nuclear in the wake of the Fukushima Daiichi disaster, with coal hampered by looming emissions caps, unexpectedly abundant gas seems poised to fill the energy vwith coal hampered by looming emissions caps, unexpectedly abundant gas seems poised to fill the energy void.

So if we have hydro and it is not as reliable as it used to be in the past, we can supplement with nuclear or coal because that is much cheaper, 5, 6 or even 7 cents, it is far cheaper.

«There will be relatively high costs in developing this new nuclear facility but broadly comparable with other low carbon technologies such as offshore wind, and, potentially, carbon capture and storage applied to gas and coal fired power stations.

Nuclear and coal - burning power plants across the state are struggling to compete with cheap natural gas and some have announced closures in recent months.

Ultimately, the replacement of old, highly polluting coal - fired power plants by nuclear reactors is essentially no different from deciding, after putting sentimental considerations aside, to replace your inexpensive and reliable — but obsolete — 1983 Olds Omega with a 2007 Toyota Camry or BMW 3 Series sedan.

In the one case, it is replaced with coal - based liquid fuels and in the other with renewable resources, such as wind, solar, or nuclear power.

The sentence marked with an asterisk was changed from «In fact, fly ash — a by - product from burning coal for power — and other coal waste contains up to 100 times more radiation than nuclear waste» to «In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant — a by - product from burning coal for electricity — carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy.»

To answer the question of just how harmful leaching could be, the scientists estimated radiation exposure around the coal plants and compared it with exposure levels around boiling - water reactor and pressurized - water nuclear power plants.

With consumption growing, oil supplies tight, and the world in a warming trend, the search is on for better energy sources — clean coal, safe nuclear reactors, and more far - reaching ideas like artificial photosynthesis.

Adding a price on carbon emissions at even a «modest» level of $ 25 per ton would make new nuclear energy competitive with coal and natural gas even if the risk premium remains, the MIT study concludes.

Eliminating this financial risk premium makes nuclear power levelized electricity cost competitive with that of coal, and it becomes lower than that of coal when a modest price on carbon dioxide emissions is imposed,» the report says.

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 burniWith 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 burniwith electricity from clean sources, not coal burning).

With oil and natural gas prices rising rapidly and nuclear power stuck in political limbo, the world's appetite for coal is soaring.

«For the rest, the only nonpolluting alternatives are coal with CCS and nuclear,» he says.

However, as the UK has shifted focus from coal - and oil - fired electricity generation to being more reliant on natural gas as the fuel of choice (irrespective of wind, solar, nuclear and other alternatives), this makes the electricity grid somewhat vulnerable to accidental and incidental problems with the flow of data and to malicious manipulation for the sake of sabotage, criminal or online military / terrorist action.

In contrast with electricity generated from coal or natural gas, nuclear power contributes little to greenhouse gas emissions and could therefore help in the effort to reduce global warming.

Hydrogen can also be split from water in high - temperature nuclear reactors or generated from fossil fuels such as coal or natural gas, with the resulting carbon dioxide captured and sequestered rather than released into the atmosphere.

The energy research offices have priorities that tend to shift with the «partisan» tides, he said, as administrations and bureaucrats favor wind or nuclear or coal research, for example, depending on the «political» winds.

Many environmental groups oppose nuclear power and any use of coal, even with carbon capture and sequestration technology.

For each sector, they then analyzed the current amount and source of the fuel consumed — coal, oil, gas, nuclear, renewables — and calculated the fuel demands if all fuel usage were replaced with electricity.

Substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from the electricity sector are achievable over the next two to three decades through a portfolio approach involving the widespread deployment of energy efficiency technologies; renewable energy; coal, natural gas, and biomass with carbon capture and storage; and nuclear technologies.

We also discuss what's going on in New Mexico with renewable energy, work that offers a better response to meeting people's energy needs and also is better environmentally and more affordable than nuclear power — or coal, oil, and natural gas that also play major roles in New Mexico.

With all of the hoopla surrounding nuclear energy, hydropower and biofuels, you might be forgiven for thinking that grimy coal is finally on its way out.

Yes, for the individual owner it maybe does, but that at the cost of the rest of the world, because electric energy still comes mostly from coal / oil / nuclear power generators for one, with correspondent pollution and infrastructure load.

I myself have been accused of being a paid shill for the coal industry, because I argued that rapidly deploying solar and wind energy technologies, along with efficiency and smart grid technologies, is a much faster and much more cost effective way of reducing GHG emissions from electricity generation than building new nuclear power plants.

That coal gas fired power plants must be shut down by 2050 and replaced with whatever works, from nuclear, hydro, renewable, energy efficiency, and massive demand reductions across the board.

Or the Turkey Point nuclear expansion, in which Florida Power & Light toys with the idea of adding two new reactors to their coal / gas / nuclear plant 25 miles outside Miami — even though it is extremely exposed to sea level rise (and potentially hurricane storm surge.)

And the intermittent problem with coal power or oil or nuclear (you have to stop them to service them!)

I am not an expert, just an ordinary citizen who has followed energy issues for 40 years; but for what it's worth, I think that nuclear and coal - with - CCS are neither necessary (since we can get all the electricity we need, and more, from renewables) nor effective (since nuclear will take too long to build up to the point where it makes any significant contribution, and working CCS doesn't exist and is unlikely to exist for decades).

I was trying to estimate the mining footprints of solar and nuclear, and came up with some very tentative rough estimates that ore input for solar energy might have an energy density (per unit mass) ~ 5 to 80 times coal, while nuclear (convential US fuel cycle) may be ~ 20 times coal — on the solar side, this doesn't include some balance of system components, and on the nuclear side, it only includes the U, but on the solar side, the actual energy density could get much higher with recycling of the same material into multiple successive generations of solar energy devices, and on the nuclear side, breeder reactors.

One major issue with nuclear plants (as well as coal and all other thermal power plants) is the fresh water wasted in heat rejection.

The liability issues with nuclear are just too great, however, and they are starting to get there with coal, too.

Our seas will need to have tens of thousands to these wind turbines deployed at several per week to do the job in time and only shallow offshore is viable at the present time and that is inline with existing baseload fossil fuel coal and gas fired power plants along with existing nuclear ones to.

It examines questions about the safety and costs of nuclear power relative to coal and other choices for electricity generation, along with the risk of proliferation of nuclear weapons and emissions of greenhouse gases relative to other energy sources.

The way to decrease emission from oil is to increase miles - per - gallon standards for light vehicles and eventually to electrify light vehicle transportation while at the same time shifting away from coal to produce electricity to sources with much lower emissions (gas, wind, nuclear).

China is going gangbusters on renewables (in addition to coal) and on shifting to more efficient coal use (and continuing with nuclear and, of course, gas).

According to the State Bureau of Statistics, 80 percent of electricity in China is generated from coal with contributions from hydro at 17 percent, nuclear 2 percent and «wind and other» at a measly 0.7 percent.

It may be fine to argue, as George Monbiot and others have done with reams of data, that nuclear reactors, even after Fukushima, are vastly safer than coal in terms of lives lost.

All and all have there not been less injuries associated with nuclear energy than those resulting from coal mining and exposure to air contaminants from burning coal?

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.&racoal 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.&raCoal can fill the real gaps in our fuel economy with only a temporary and modest (less than twofold at peak) expansion of mining.»

That qualification would apply almost exclusively to nuclear reactors with their always - on fuel, dams with big reservoirs and the leeway to control the flow of water, and coal plants with big enough piles of fuel to qualify.

In the 1960s, most conservationists favored nuclear plants as a clean energy alternative to coal plants and hydroelectric dams and only turned away from nuclear with the rise of open anti-humanism.