Example collocations logo

Fuels in sentence

1107 examples of Fuels in a sentence

And the US needs a sustainable, efficient labor-migration policy to replace its current approach, which fuels illegal immigration.
The fundamental problem is that green-energy technologies are still very inefficient and expensive compared to fossil fuels.
In order for the whole planet to make a sustainable shift away from fossil fuels, we need to make low-carbon energy both cheaper and more efficient.
We can harness safe nuclear energy, lower the cost of solar power, or capture and safely store the CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels.
If anything, the economy’s dependence on exports of fuels and industrial minerals has increased, meaning that smaller price fluctuations have a greater impact on Russia’s fiscal and external position.
Now Germany, along with Spain, is focusing on renewables like wind and solar – but remains highly dependent on fossil fuels when there is no wind or sun.
For example, today there is no global price on carbon to shift energy investment from fossil fuels to renewable sources; but we know that, in order to keep global warming below the 2º limit, such a price is coming soon.
The Hartwell group proposes that we adopt three basic climate-related goals: ensuring secure, affordable energy supplies for everyone (which means developing alternatives to fossil fuels); ensuring that economic development doesn’t wreak environmental havoc (which means not just reducing CO2 emissions, but also cutting indoor pollution from burning biomass, reducing ozone, and protecting tropical forests); and making sure that we are prepared to cope with whatever climate changes may occur, man-made or natural (which means recognizing, at last, the importance of adapting to climate change).
Instead of single-mindedly trying to force people to do without carbon-emitting fuels, the Hartwell group suggests that we pursue a number of other worthy goals – for example, adaptation, reforestation, encouraging biodiversity, and improving air quality – each of which is important, and all of which may also reduce carbon emissions.
At the same time, the group adds, we must recognize that we won’t make any real progress in cutting CO2 emissions until we can provide developing economies with affordable alternatives to the fossil fuels on which they currently depend.
Similarly, while the world today searches for ways to confront dependence on fossil fuels and seeks other, cleaner energy sources, Russia continues to live off its oil and gas, which only encourages it to delay the economic and political restructuring that it will need to succeed in the long term.
What steady-state advocates forget is that stagnating or declining incomes would heighten resistance to higher taxes on fossil fuels and delay investment in green technologies (and thus the transition to new industries and the creation of better jobs).
For example, wind power, we are repeatedly told, is just about to be cheaper than fossil fuels – or even, as a recent global news story claimed, that it is now cheaper than fossil fuels in Germany and the United Kingdom.
Some people may think that is a good thing; but, if our societies are to continue functioning in cloudy, windless weather, that means relying on some fossil fuels.
The IEA estimates that 56% of electricity will come from fossil fuels in 2040, with nuclear and hydro accounting for another 28%.
Building more wind and solar generating capacity with subsidies means societies end up paying three times for power – once for the power, once for subsidies to inefficient renewables, and once more to subsidize our now-inefficient fossil fuels.
Production of the materials used to capture and store solar electricity, for example, can cause just as much environmental damage as conventional fuels, and existing wind and solar technology cannot easily meet the needs of large populations.
Of course, fossil fuels, mainly coal and natural gas, remain important, but their extraction and use is tied to groundwater pollution and carbon-dioxide emissions, especially in North America and China.
Global deposits of methane clathrate contain more than twice the amount of energy of all known fossil fuels, and it can burn cleanly.
Trying to cut carbon emissions drastically in the short-term would be particularly damaging, because it would not be possible for industry and consumers to replace carbon-burning fossil fuels with cheap, green energy.
Consider the fact that 97% of China’s energy comes from fossil fuels and burning waste and biomass.
And 60% of the total deaths reflect the burning of biomass (such as animal dung and crop residues) for cooking and heating, which has no relation to either fossil fuels or global warming.
If the Global Vulnerability Monitor’s recommendation to cut back on fossil fuels were taken seriously, the result would be slower economic growth and continued reliance on dung, cardboard, and other low-grade fuels, thereby prolonging the suffering that results from indoor air pollution.
Solar and wind power are still too expensive and inefficient to replace our reliance on fossil fuels.
Once innovation drives the price of green energy below that of fossil fuels, everyone will switch.
Although science has demonstrated that CO2 from fossil fuels is heating the planet, politicians are unwilling to follow his advice and stop building coal-fired power plants.
The benefits of fossil fuels must be weighed against the costs of global warming.
But while the link between burning fossil fuels and deadly weather has been strengthening for years, policymakers have not always heeded the warnings.
For starters, oil and gas prices are volatile, and fossil fuels in general have an uncertain future.
But even under the most optimistic scenarios, it will take time to engineer a global shift away from fossil fuels toward renewable energies and to restore the world’s badly depleted ecological infrastructure.
BackNext