• 4 minutes Permian already crested the productivity bell curve - downward now to Tier 2 geological locations
  • 12 minutes Western Canada Select price continues to sink
  • 18 minutes Starvation, horror in Venezuela
  • 1 hour WTI @ 67.50, charts show $62.50 next
  • 3 hours China still to keep Iran oil flowing amid U.S. sanctions
  • 24 mins How To Explain 'Truth Isn't Truth' Comment of Rudy Giuliani?
  • 2 hours Is NAFTA dead? Or near breakthrough?
  • 5 hours China goes against US natural gas
  • 7 hours Japan carmakers admits using falsified emissions data
  • 5 hours Saudi PIF In Talks To Invest In Tesla Rival Lucid
  • 4 hours Corporations Are Buying More Renewables Than Ever
  • 4 hours Desperate Call or... Erdogan Says Turkey Will Boycott U.S. Electronics
  • 21 hours Hey Oil Bulls - How Long Till Increasing Oil Prices and Strengthening Dollar Start Killing Demand in Developing Countries?
  • 3 hours Saudi Fund Wants to Take Tesla Private?
  • 2 hours Batteries Could Be a Small Dotcom-Style Bubble
  • 2 hours Are Trump's steel tariffs working? Seems they are!
Alt Text

How Feasible Are Electric Trucks?

Elon Musk announced, to great…

Alt Text

Energy Giant Bets On Battery Breakthrough Within 5 Years

Utility giant Duke Energy expects…

Alt Text

Does China Control The EV Revolution?

The electric vehicle revolution is…

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




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