These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

183 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15242153)

  • 1. Supply curves for using powder river basin coal to reduce sulfur emissions.
    Malvadkar SB; Smith D; McGurl GV
    J Air Waste Manag Assoc; 2004 Jun; 54(6):741-9. PubMed ID: 15242153
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Economics of an integrated approach to control SO2, NOX, HCl, and particulate emissions from power plants.
    Shemwell BE; Ergut A; Levendis YA
    J Air Waste Manag Assoc; 2002 May; 52(5):521-34. PubMed ID: 12022692
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Accelerated reduction in SO₂ emissions from the U.S. power sector triggered by changing prices of natural gas.
    Lu X; McElroy MB; Wu G; Nielsen CP
    Environ Sci Technol; 2012 Jul; 46(14):7882-9. PubMed ID: 22724530
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Assessment of potential carbon dioxide reductions due to biomass-coal cofiring in the United States.
    Robinson AL; Rhodes JS; Keith DW
    Environ Sci Technol; 2003 Nov; 37(22):5081-9. PubMed ID: 14655692
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Flue gas desulfurization: the state of the art.
    Srivastava RK; Jozewicz W
    J Air Waste Manag Assoc; 2001 Dec; 51(12):1676-88. PubMed ID: 15666473
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Implications of near-term coal power plant retirement for SO2 and NOX and life cycle GHG emissions.
    Venkatesh A; Jaramillo P; Griffin WM; Matthews HS
    Environ Sci Technol; 2012 Sep; 46(18):9838-45. PubMed ID: 22888978
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Implications of the recent reductions in natural gas prices for emissions of CO2 from the US power sector.
    Lu X; Salovaara J; McElroy MB
    Environ Sci Technol; 2012 Mar; 46(5):3014-21. PubMed ID: 22321206
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. The shadow price of substitutable sulfur in the US electric power plant: a distance function approach.
    Lee M
    J Environ Manage; 2005 Oct; 77(2):104-10. PubMed ID: 15993533
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Emissions of sulfur trioxide from coal-fired power plants.
    Srivastava RK; Miller CA; Erickson C; Jambhekar R
    J Air Waste Manag Assoc; 2004 Jun; 54(6):750-62. PubMed ID: 15242154
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Health and air quality benefits of policies to reduce coal-fired power plant emissions: a case study in North Carolina.
    Li YR; Gibson JM
    Environ Sci Technol; 2014 Sep; 48(17):10019-27. PubMed ID: 25046689
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Environmental implications of United States coal exports: a comparative life cycle assessment of future power system scenarios.
    Bohnengel B; Patiño-Echeverri D; Bergerson J
    Environ Sci Technol; 2014 Aug; 48(16):9908-16. PubMed ID: 25025127
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Opportunity for offshore wind to reduce future demand for coal-fired power plants in China with consequent savings in emissions of CO2.
    Lu X; McElroy MB; Chen X; Kang C
    Environ Sci Technol; 2014 Dec; 48(24):14764-71. PubMed ID: 25409413
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Dynamic Management of NOx and SO2 Emissions in the Texas and Mid-Atlantic Electric Power Systems and Implications for Air Quality.
    McDonald-Buller E; Kimura Y; Craig M; McGaughey G; Allen D; Webster M
    Environ Sci Technol; 2016 Feb; 50(3):1611-9. PubMed ID: 26727552
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Should a coal-fired power plant be replaced or retrofitted?
    Patiño-Echeverri D; Morel B; Apt J; Chen C
    Environ Sci Technol; 2007 Dec; 41(23):7980-6. PubMed ID: 18186326
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Ozone monitoring instrument observations of interannual increases in SO2 emissions from Indian coal-fired power plants during 2005-2012.
    Lu Z; Streets DG; de Foy B; Krotkov NA
    Environ Sci Technol; 2013 Dec; 47(24):13993-4000. PubMed ID: 24274462
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Control strategies of atmospheric mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants in China.
    Tian H; Wang Y; Cheng K; Qu Y; Hao J; Xue Z; Chai F
    J Air Waste Manag Assoc; 2012 May; 62(5):576-86. PubMed ID: 22696807
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Uncertainty and variability in health-related damages from coal-fired power plants in the United States.
    Levy JI; Baxter LK; Schwartz J
    Risk Anal; 2009 Jul; 29(7):1000-14. PubMed ID: 19392676
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Environmental and economic evaluation of bioenergy in Ontario, Canada.
    Zhang Y; Habibi S; MacLean HL
    J Air Waste Manag Assoc; 2007 Aug; 57(8):919-33. PubMed ID: 17824282
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Benefits of current and future policies on emissions of China's coal-fired power sector indicated by continuous emission monitoring.
    Zhang Y; Bo X; Zhao Y; Nielsen CP
    Environ Pollut; 2019 Aug; 251():415-424. PubMed ID: 31103001
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20.
    ; ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.