www.luntacunt.fora.pl
Luntacunt project
www.luntacunt.fora.pl Forum Index
->
Snapshots
Post a reply
Username
Subject
Message body
Emoticons
View more Emoticons
Font colour:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Indigo
Violet
White
Black
Font size:
Tiny
Small
Normal
Large
Huge
Close Tags
Options
HTML is
OFF
BBCode
is
ON
Smilies are
ON
Disable BBCode in this post
Disable Smilies in this post
Confirmation code: *
All times are GMT + 2 Hours
Select a forum
Team
----------------
Rules
Announcements
Assignments
Forge
Legal / publishing
Tips & Tricks
Pub
Design
----------------
Genre
Technologie
Implementacja
----------------
Schedule
Snapshots
Topic review
<table border="0" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1" width="100%" class="forumline"> <tr> <th class="thCornerL" width="22%" height="26">Author</th> <th class="thCornerR">Message</th> </tr> <tr> <td width="22%" align="left" valign="top" class="row1"><span class="name"><a name=""></a><b>cheapbag214s</b></span></td> <td class="row1" height="28" valign="top"><table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> <tr> <td width="100%"><img src="http://picsrv.fora.pl/Aeolus/images/icon_minipost.gif" width="12" height="9" alt="Post" title="Post" border="0" /><span class="postdetails">Posted: Thu 1:59, 31 Oct 2013<span class="gen"> </span> Post subject: " study co-author Laurie Johnson</span></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><hr /></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><span class="postbody">Wind, solar and natural gas said better than coal-fired power plants <br />NEW YORK, Sept. 17 () -- Wind,[url=http://www.fbrecs.com/]Jimmy Choo Sale[/url], 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, 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.chronotime.net/]louboutin men[/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,[url=http://www.apollo13show.com/]michael kors handbags outlet[/url], 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,[url=http://www.yubikeys.net/]true religion jeans outlet[/url], the study authors said."And yet, 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.</span></td> </tr> </table></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2" height="1" class="spaceRow"><img src="http://picsrv.fora.pl/Aeolus/images/spacer.gif" alt="" width="1" height="1" /></td> </tr> </table>
fora.pl
- załóż własne forum dyskusyjne za darmo
Powered by
phpBB
© 2001-2003 phpBB Group
Theme created by
Vjacheslav Trushkin
Regulamin
