A picture's worth a thousand words, and this graphic from the IEA hammers home the point that if you're looking for a long-term energy source, wind is it.
The image is included in an article in The Economist titled "The Shape of Things to Come?" It's a thorough account of the different angles to the current discussion over nuclear.
Also in nuclear news: The Australian reports on some objections to nuclear based on the life-cycle analysis argument, and Alternative Energy Blog has some good discussion on the paper.
Comments
View as Flat
amazingdrx Posted 11:10 pm
12 Jul 2005
We the people and mother earth are winning!
Wind electricity nearing 2 cents per kwh and still dropping!! Get those Toshiba lithium ion nano batteries into mass production and middle east oil will no longer be needed for US transportation.
Will US allies follow? With a sane administration and a sane energy policy they will.
http://amazngdrx.myblogsite.com/blog
ps. too bad the nuke waste and fossil pollution costs weren't included in that graphic!! Someone ought to draw up a new one including those factors.
Andy? A great article would result!!
Permalink
MikeCapone Posted 8:17 am
13 Jul 2005
Actually, reversing the question would be more accurate.
--
SUVs are squared-out minivans.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 8:44 am
13 Jul 2005
Hook up a few million electric cars with the new fast charge batteries.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 9:07 am
13 Jul 2005
Awesome news on an awesome blog!!! Nukes create more warming than even natural gas that emits CO2, a major greenhoise gas.
I suspected as much. The heat released to boil water in the reactor is all transferred eventually into the climate. It's like bringing part of good old sol down to earth.
Nuclear power was meant to be 93 million miles from earth, in the sun, where it's safe!
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:40 am
16 Jul 2005
The real reasons it is no contest, wind is the hands down winner.
That warming from releasing nuclear heat? Not sure on that part of it?
Permalink