forum zespołu muzyki folk Portfolk
Zapraszamy do dyskusji... TO SCOTLAND!!!
FAQ
Szukaj
Użytkownicy
Grupy
Galerie
Rejestracja
Profil
Zaloguj się, by sprawdzić wiadomości
Zaloguj
Forum forum zespołu muzyki folk Portfolk Strona Główna
->
Doradź nam coś.
Napisz odpowiedź
Użytkownik
Temat
Treść wiadomości
Emotikony
Więcej Ikon
Kolor:
Domyślny
Ciemnoczerwony
Czerwony
Pomarańćzowy
Brązowy
Żółty
Zielony
Oliwkowy
Błękitny
Niebieski
Ciemnoniebieski
Purpurowy
Fioletowy
Biały
Czarny
Rozmiar:
Minimalny
Mały
Normalny
Duży
Ogromny
Zamknij Tagi
Opcje
HTML:
NIE
BBCode
:
TAK
Uśmieszki:
TAK
Wyłącz BBCode w tym poście
Wyłącz Uśmieszki w tym poście
Kod potwierdzający: *
Wszystkie czasy w strefie EET (Europa)
Skocz do:
Wybierz forum
KATEGORIE
----------------
Koncerty
Doradź nam coś.
Co o nas myślisz?
O wszystkim i o niczym
Przegląd tematu
Autor
Wiadomość
cheapbag214s
Wysłany: Pią 3:01, 01 Lis 2013
Temat postu: writing in the Journal of Environmental Studies
Wind, solar and natural gas said better than coal-fired power plants
NEW YORK, Sept. 17 () -- Wind, solar and natural gas are cheaper electricity sources than coal-fired plants if climate change costs and health impacts are measured, a U.S. study found.The study authors,[url=http://www.chronotime.net/]louboutin men[/url], writing in the Journal of Environmental Studies, say the United States can cut carbon pollution from power plants in a cost-effective way by replacing coal-fired generation with cleaner options.Using official U.S. government estimates of health and environmental costs from burning fossil fuels,[url=http://www.apollo13show.com/]michael kors coupon[/url], the researchers reported they've determined it's cheaper to replace a typical existing coal-fired power plant with wind turbines than to keep the old plant running."Burning coal is a very costly way to make electricity. There are more efficient and sustainable ways to get power," study co-author Laurie Johnson, chief economist in the Climate and Clean Air Program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said. "We can reduce health and climate change costs while reducing the dangerous carbon pollution driving global warming."Power plants are the nation's single largest source of such pollution, accounting for 40 percent of the national carbon footprint, the study authors said."And yet,[url=http://www.dtvtk3.com/]jimmy choo shoes sale[/url], there are no federal limits on the amount of carbon pollution our power plants may release," Johnson said. "That's wrong. It doesn't make sense. It's putting our future at risk. We limit the amount of mercury, arsenic, soot and other harmful pollution from these plants. It's time to cut this carbon pollution."Already, climate change is contributing to record heat waves, floods, drought, wildfires and severe storms."Such extreme weather caused more than $140 billion in damages in 2012, with much of that bill being paid by American taxpayers, an NRDC report said."These damages are only likely to increase if nothing is done to reduce carbon pollution," Johnson said.
fora.pl
- załóż własne forum dyskusyjne za darmo
Powered by
phpBB
© 2001 phpBB Group
Chronicles phpBB2 theme by
Jakob Persson
(
http://www.eddingschronicles.com
). Stone textures by
Patty Herford
.
Regulamin