• 3 minutes Biden Seeks $2 Trillion Clean Energy And Infrastructure Spending Boost
  • 5 minutes While U.S. Pipelines Are Under Siege, China Streamlines Its Oil and Gas Network
  • 8 minutes Gazprom fails to exempt Nord Stream-2 from EU market rules
  • 7 hours China wields coronavirus to nationalize American-owned carmaker
  • 3 hours Open letter from Politico about US-russian relations
  • 20 mins Joe Biden the "Archie Bunker" of the left selects Kamala Harris for VP . . . . . . Does she help the campaign ?
  • 23 hours Renewables Overtake Coal, But Lag Far Behind Oil And Natural Gas
  • 2 days Trumpist lies about coronavirus too bad for Facebook - BANNED!
  • 18 hours US will pay for companies to bring supply chains home from China: Kudlow - COVID-19 has highlighted the problem of relying too heavily on one country for production
  • 2 days China's impending economic meltdown
  • 3 days Why Oil could hit $100
  • 8 hours Trump is turning USA into a 3rd world dictatorship
  • 3 days Pompeo upsets China; oil & gas prices to fall
  • 3 days Brent above $45. Holding breath for $50??
  • 2 days Rational analysis of CV19 from Harvard Medical School
  • 2 days The Truth about Chinese and Indian Engineering
  • 2 days What the heroin industry can teach us about solar power (BBC)
Editorial Dept

Editorial Dept

More Info

Premium Content

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


Download The Free Oilprice App Today

Back to homepage





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