Sentences with phrase «with less coal»

But many states and regional transmission organizations and grid operators are already planning for a future with less coal, and are turning to increased transmission for wind and gas - fired power plants to demand response to meet future demand.

Allegedly that's because these new coal plants are «super-efficient» getting more power with less coal.

Not exact matches

Electric utilities have been replacing coal plants with gas - fired facilities because they are more efficient and less expensive to operate.

GREG WARREN: With coal fired and natural gas plants continuing to generate around two thirds of the nation's electricity and renewables accounting to less than 10 percent, there remains plenty of room for growth.

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.

Extracting CO2 from traditional coal plants is much less efficient than from gasification plants, where coal is first turned to a gas and reacted with water to form CO2 and hydrogen.

Instead, with the imposition of a cap - and - trade program, O'Connor said, people looked at the sources of coal and realized they could obtain it from different parts of the country with lower sulfur, cutting emissions at less cost.

Pretreating with thermal depolymerization also makes coal more friable, so less energy is needed to crush it before combustion in electricity - generating plants.

The average cost of generating nuclear energy in the United States was less than two cents per kilowatt - hour in 2006, according to the Atlanta - based utility data provider Ventyx, which puts it on par with coal.

Indeed, the Clean Power Plan proposed by the Obama administration to clean up CO2 emissions from power plants relies on capture and storage to allow coal - fired power plants to continue to produce electricity, but with less climate - changing pollution.

Many said that if EPA follows through with rescinding the rule, the agency should write a less stringent carbon regulation that sets efficiency standards for coal plants.

Although natural gas generates less greenhouse gas than coal when burned, when its total life - cycle emissions associated with extraction and distribution are factored in, it does not seem much cleaner than coal

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).

Keeping in mind the enormous stake that panel members ExxonMobil and Shell have in the oil, natural gas and coal industries, here is a look at the panel's take on why oil and coal have been so difficult to replace by the following alternative energy sources: Natural gas ExxonMobil favors boosting the U.S.'s consumption of natural gas, in part, because it produces at least 50 percent less greenhouse gas per hour when burned compared with coal, Nazeer Bhore, ExxonMobil senior technology advisor, said during the panel.

The DOE is asking Congress for $ 407 million to research how to burn coal most efficiently, along with $ 241 million to demonstrate such carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies — at least $ 900 million less than DOE said it would have cost to complete FutureGen.

«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.

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.

But is has some questionable elements: an interior that fits way too tight; an interior that has a design similar to the lowest of Honda offerings (the prominent parking brake button is the same as in the Honda HR - V); an interior that is as bright as a coal mine - even with the color accents; sticker run - up with weird and over priced carbon fiber options; a cup holder than is less effective than a 911's though doesn't exhibit the effort of Porsche; no room for anything more than your wallet (the front compartment is filled with electrics / electronics).

«If we can not stop the building of more coal - fired power plants, those coal trains will be death trains — no less gruesome than if they were boxcars headed to crematoria, loaded with uncountable irreplaceable species.»

(One phrase that reverberates almost as much as green jobs these days in climate - energy discussions, with far less credibility, is «clean coal.»)

It says nothing about people rushing to stoke the engine with more and more coal, or how much actual coal is added (thus the actual range of speeds to expect), or the possibility of a precipice with bridge out up ahead (runaway GW), how dangerous that might be at various speeds, entailing greater or less number of deaths, or how far or close that precipice is, which we don't know either (except we have some fossil evidence of train wrecks in which 90 % of life died, so we know it could be bad).

There is not a single similar institution in the U.S. — oh, you might point to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, managed jointly by Bechtel and Battelle (oil pipelines and «clean coal» - FutureGen projects), but they get their funding slashed every year, more or less — and they cancelled their most promising biofuel program, algal biofuel, back in 1997 — good luck with that.

In a sign of things that might have been, Chinese children born after the closure of a local coal plant have found themselves with 60 % less development problems such as motor skill coordination than those born prior to the closing.

Moreover, even if methane leakage were to remain modest in some areas, long - term climate models suggest that warming trends have less to do with the rate of methane leakage and more to do with other variables, such as the thermal efficiency of future coal plants and whether the switch to gas is permanent or a bridge to zero - carbon energy.

Re 273 — not that I am prone to agreeing with Edward Greisch, but those numbers are presumably before profit, or... Well, the number for coal seems about right, so far as I know, though it is much less than what anyone pays for retail electricity now.

Now what we can do is 1) develop a sustainable energy economy 2) a) burn all the coal and other fossil fuels, buying us, if we make optimistic assumptions, perhaps a century of ever more elaborate schemes to meet energy needs with less and less suitable sources b) THEN in a severely degraded environment

... In the U.S. electricity supply sector, the cost benchmark for reducing carbon dioxide emissions lies with substitution of natural gas for coal, especially older, less efficient units.

Even with the logic in driving efficiency, doesn't it still make sense to have an «all of the above» plan in shifting to less - polluting energy options, given how a shift from coal to natural gas — while not perfect by any means — also syncs with environmental goals related to other pollutants (mercury, etc.)?

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?

Unfortunately for climate, these China 2014 coal additions — which in one year alone were double the size of the United Kingdom's entire legacy coal fleet — will be around and cranking away for many decades, along with the rest of China's coal fleet, most of which is less than 15 years old.

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.»

While solar is a far less polluting energy source than coal or natural gas, many panel makers are nevertheless grappling with a hazardous waste problem.

The project activity is the introduction of an alternative ignition technique for domestic coal fires that causes households to switch from a less efficient ignition technique with significant greenhouse gas emissions to a technique that results in considerably less emissions.

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.

Study finds co-producing FT fuels and electricity from coal and biomass with CCS delivers low GHG synfuels at lower cost and with less biomass than cellulosic ethanol

That simple change allows new plants to generate the same amount of electricity with 30 percent to 40 percent less coal.

SaskPower claims it will actually spend less energy capturing CO2 than Kemper will — with a technology that can be applied to existing coal plants, not just fancy new IGCCs.

The simplest change would be to replace coal + CCS with nuclear (the UK government now seems to be chasing the mirage of Small Modular Reactors) but that is only marginally less unrealistic than CCS (a new post on this shortly, I hope).

However as we speak Australia is helping with real global carbon cuts by exporting 20 % less coal.

Oil is especially useful due to its portability (I don't expect coal - burning cars to come on the market any time soon), so I wouldn't expect the drop in oil consumption to be made up for with other lesser fossil fuels.

With an estimated social cost of carbon — a damage estimate of global warming pollution — of $ 65 (far less than other estimates), the GED for coal - fired generators is 4.7 cents / kWh.

But delivering those same services with less energy, more productively used, could shrink 2050 usage to 71 quads, eliminate the need for oil, coal, nuclear energy, and one - third of the natural gas, and save $ 5 trillion in net - present - valued cost.

Burning coal, for example, also produces copious quantities of greenhouse gasses (even with «clean coal» technologies) and our coal reserves are decidedly less limited than our oil reserves.

However, as China continues to replace older, less efficient generators with more efficient units, China's power sector coal consumption is expected to peak as soon as 2018, at 4,800 million metric tons.

A natural gas turbine can reach about 350, while a coal plant equipped with carbon capture — such as the innovative Boundary Dam CCS project in Canada — can release less than 130 kg of CO2 per megawatt - hour.

Most industry observers expect the agency to respond with a less - stringent regulation aimed at modest efficiency improvements for coal plants.

While testifying in front of the Iowa Utilities Board, Hansen said, «If we can not stop the building of more coal - fired power plants, those coal trains will be death trains — no less gruesome than if they were boxcars headed to crematoria, loaded with uncountable irreplaceable species.»

As you say Giles, Macfarlane sees wave and geothermal as far less a near term threat to coal and gas, so his strategy is to back them with a few meagre tax payer funded handouts while we let the carbon giants continue to pollute our otherwise wonderful nation for free!

US Appalachian Coal has become less important because of the sulphur content regulations (US power emissions), which Wyoming Coal meets (albeit with lower thermal value).

What we need to concern ourselves with is how to get nuclear in Australia at a cost less than coal.