Sentences with phrase «worse than renewable»

Not exact matches

I fail to see how these renewable products are worse for the environment than products that are mostly made from petrol and other non-renwables.

While the climate situation is far worse than most people think, the options for quickly phasing out fossil fuel and nuclear energy and replacing them with clean renewable energy sources are much better than most people think.

Renewables are NON-sustainable, stochastically intermittent and erratic and at least 100,000,000 times worse in releasable energy content than any demandable secure hydrocarbon fuels.

But they are still far worse than gas - fired plants let alone renewables or (if it could be made to work) CCS.

It stresses the good, such as «we will use and generate only renewable energy,» rather than the more commonly stated less bad; «we will reduce our use of fossil fuels.»

More than 200 companies have committed to set emissions - reduction targets based on what the science says is necessary to prevent the worst effects of climate change, nearly 600 are working toward deforestation - free supply chains, and 84 have committed to source 100 percent renewable energy.

Usual investment criteria may not deliver the super low - cost, clean, renewable energy soon enough to avoid the worst effects of climate change,» said Dr. Larry Brilliant, Executive Director of Google.org, Google's philanthropic arm, «Google.org's hope is that by funding research on promising technologies, investing in promising new companies, and doing a lot of R&D ourselves, we may help spark a green electricity revolution that will deliver breakthrough technologies priced lower than coal.»

«For if you think you can stop the world's climate from changing by making pensioner's pay more for their energy, building wind farms and mandating Renewable Energy Targets — then you are worse than deluded.

Other renewables like tide and biomass will still be somewhere in the future, but will not be a better alternative than they are now, and in the case of biomass, much worse.

The «alleged» problem of Climate Change is genuine, and worse than what Al Gore and the EPA, and any advocate of wind turbines or other weather - dependent «renewable energy» realise.

A region that relies more heavily on coal - powered electricity generation, for example, rated worse for global warming emissions than a region using more renewable sources of energy.

But most big countries have various incentives for renewable energy or solar specifically, making it hard to know who's really getting more help (and if one country is getting a lot more help than others, by buying their products you are getting a subsidy from their government, so that's not bad either).

If cheap shale gas crowds out renewables or increases energy demand more than IEA predicts, or methane leaks are worse than we think, cheap shale gas will actually hasten climate emissions, even in the short term (2035).

These issues are far from clear and settled but it is very likely that when they are EROIs for renewables will be considerably worse than is currently assumed.

Much of the renewable subsidy industry justified in the name of these flawed models causes net grid emissions of CO2 to be much worse for much longer than simply replacing coal with clean low carbon gas and long term inevitable base load zero carbon nuclear on the grid, unsubsidised — but that's only a generation engineering fact from the laws of physics.

This is because the downturn had affected investments into unsustainable high carbon technologies much more significantly than investment in renewable energies, which have been less badly hit and quicker to recover.