• 6 minutes Saudis Threaten Retaliation If Sanctions are Imposed
  • 11 minutes Can the World Survive without Saudi Oil?
  • 15 minutes Saudis Pull Hyperloop Funding As Branson Temporarily Cuts Ties With The Kingdom
  • 16 mins WTI @ $75.75, headed for $64 - 67
  • 37 mins Trump vs. MbS
  • 10 hours The Dirt on Clean Electric Cars
  • 18 mins Saudi-Kuwaiti Talks on Shared Oil Stall Over Chevron
  • 9 mins These are the world’s most competitive economies: US No. 1
  • 16 hours Uber IPO Proposals Value Company at $120 Billion
  • 7 hours Closing the circle around Saudi Arabia: Where did Khashoggi disappear?
  • 5 hours EU to Splash Billions on Battery Factories
  • 20 hours COLORADO FOCUS: Stocks to Watch Prior to Midterms
  • 11 hours Coal remains a major source of power in Europe.
  • 7 hours Poland signs 20-year deal on U.S. LNG supplies
  • 23 hours UN Report Suggests USD $240 Per Gallon Gasoline Tax to Fight Global Warming
  • 17 hours U.N. About Climate Change: World Must Take 'Unprecedented' Steps To Avert Worst Effects
Alt Text

New Breakthrough Could Slash Solar Prices To New Lows

Scientists believe they’ve found a…

Alt Text

IEA: Renewables Set For Explosive Growth

The IEA sees strong growth…

Alt Text

The Overlooked Giant In Renewables

The IEA expects renewable energy…

Editorial Dept

Editorial Dept

More Info

Trending Discussions

The Pros and Cons of Nuclear Power and Renewable Sources

There has been a lot of talk about Nuclear energy since the near meltdown after the devastating tsunami in Japan earlier this year. So, we thought it might be cool to look at the pros and cons of not only Nuclear, but other less harmful, sources of renewable energy. Read below to get a better understanding of the good and bad things that come with each different source.

Renewable energy infographic

Article provided by The Daily Energy Report


x


Back to homepage

Trending Discussions


Leave a comment
  • Anonymous on September 01 2011 said:
    Nice way to to lay out alternatives. A few points regarding taxonomy, though:1. This discussion mixes apples and organges - for example, energy sources and storage media. Solar, nuclear and fossil energy are sources; hydrogen is a storage medium.2. In a related issue, the comparison fails to address dispatchability of various energy sources. Fuel provides an inherent storage capabilty but some technologies, such as PV or wind, tend to be captured as electrical energy, which requres some other technology for storage.3. The comparison promotes an implication that energy technologies are an "either/or" proposition. Solar/wind + batteries may be well-suited to distributed rural demands; nuclear may make more sense for a concentrated urban/industrial electrical/heating demand. Even more thoughtful analyses suggest the best approaches tend to involve technology combinations, or "hybrid energy systems."
  • Anonymous on September 01 2011 said:
    Wind and solar are neither dispatchable nore baseload power. They increase the need for coal and natural gas power plant backup, due to their inherent unreliability.Government mandates requiring utilities to buy wind and solar distort natural allocation of assets and production, leading to gross inefficiencies and expenses. These expenses must either be passed on to the consumer, or the entities involved go out of business or are taken over by government.Promoters of "green energy" are not practical people as a rule. They are not responsible people, in the sense that if their ideas cause severe problems, they are not responsible for all the misery and destruction they have brought about.Green activists are impractical and irresponsible in the manner of academics, journalists, attorneys, and government bureaucrats. No matter how much devastation they cause, someone else will have to clean it up.
  • Anonymous on September 02 2011 said:
    Intrigued at your average cost per kWh for fusion - in the absence of any commercial power plant that figure is at best speculative.Amazing that you don't mention as a negative feature of nuclear fission, the potential for large-scale off-site contamination following an accident; yet you cite, for example,a 'negative impact on fish' as a downside of hydrooelectric generation. In egenral I think you have over.simplified the comparisons to teh extent that they are unhelpful.
  • Anonymous on September 02 2011 said:
    too bad they didn't include geothermal in the cost comparison. its a profitable business without gov't subsidies. just got to get access to the hot spots...

Leave a comment




Oilprice - The No. 1 Source for Oil & Energy News