Nuclear power's biggest problems are economic: it is simply no longer competitive with other, newer forms of power generation. The final 20 U.S. reactors cost to billion to build, or some ,000 to ,000 per kilowatt of capacity. By contrast, new gas-fired combined cycle plants using the latest jet engine technology cost 0-0 per kilowatt, and wind turbines are being installed at less than ,000 per kilowatt.

Windmill power contracts were signed with power sold at three (3) CENTS per Kw-hr. Less than half the price of the most efficient solar cell panels.

Hybrids and electrical cars aren't that bad are they? Nuclear power could be the short term answer with wind, solar, and hydro power being the long term answer.

what does mccain think?

is nuclear power supported?

should we reduce reliance on foreign oil?

Greenpeace is always saying that Nuclear power in the UK ought to be abolished, along with coal, oil and natural gas.

fair enough, but do they have a viable proposal for how to fill that energy gap?

Wind power, nuclear power, hydro power, solar power, and geothermal

Like nuclear power is. How would they compare?

in the summertime with literally millions of air conditioners going?

Solar isn't going to do it. Wind power cant provide that much. You are scared of nuclear power.

What do you propose we use?

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech-mainmenu-30/energy/788

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/02/18/is-nuclear-energy-safer-than-wind/#more-2664

I was rather surprised to read that wind energy has caused more injuries to humans than nuclear power in America. The articles are interesting and short.

Pick one :
- Solar Farm
- Nuclear Power
- Wind Power
- Geothermal
and please dont say "all of them" haha

a They can partially reduce the need for coal and nuclear power.
b They will never reduce the need for coal or nuclear power.
c They are too expensive to be considered.
d They are still far off because of the technology needs to be developed.
e Until they can supply a large amount of energy, they should not be considered.

I'm not asking about raw research that occurs at universities - like discovering totally new technologies.

I'm wondering if there are any good reasons to subsidize existing solar, nuclear, wind, etc power companies. By reducing the price of nuclear power below the market equilibrium, people consume more nuclear power than they otherwise would, so there's a deadweight loss.

If you just want to discourage gas consumption, wouldn't a gas/petroleum tax be more efficient? That way private firms can optimally choose between other options.

In the name of climate change, the British government has become obsessed by nuclear power as the solution to future electricity generation. And yet, not long ago, nuclear power was unfashionable due to its downsides and, on the news this morning, it was said we are running out of sites to dump the waste and the sources of fuel are limited.

There are more exciting options available, such as micro generation and Combined Heat and Power, which are cheaper and can come on stream faster (I have not included wind power as it is too inefficient).

Why will the politicians not consider further alternatives?
Okay, a secondary thought: are their other considerations than climate change to bear in mind?
We always have passing 'fads' in environmental policies. We could satisfy the global warming debate and then screw up another area for later. Should we not have a wider view of any damage we might cause when choosing an energy policy?

Anything that can be used to make heat or electricity without unsustainable fuels and which does not make a net contribution of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. This includes wind power, waves and the tides, solar energy, geothermal energy and biomass. Nuclear power, although it is low-carbon, cannot be counted as a renewable source of energy because its fuel, uranium, is finite.
How does all of that help our future? Thank you.

I can pay extra money each money to my electric company and (supposedly) get my energy from wind power. This supposedly helps save the planet.

Why can't I buy nuclear energy? France gets 80% of their electricity from nuclear power. There is an endless supply and it doesn't give oil money to the terrorists in the middle east.

I just read an article on how nuclear power can be used to produce biofuel instead of using fossil fuels to produce it, thus lowering co2 emissions. I'm looking for an article like explaining how a different renewable energy source could also cut down emissions associated with hybrids. Anyone know of any? Please and thanks!

I'm doing some research and have trouble distinguishing the difference between these three types of energy sources.

So far, I have Conventional energy widely used/practical energy sources like oil, gas and coal. My assumption is that they're the primary 'standard' energy sources the world currently uses for their electricity and power since the industrial revolution.

I'm having trouble with the next two energy sources..

Conventional Alternatives, I put that at energy sources that produce less environmental waste and could be used to replace conventional energy sources. An example would be biofuels being used to replace oil/gas for cars. I guess Nuclear power could go under this energy source as it could be used to replace coal in North America but places like France have 90% of their cities powered by Nuclear - would this mean it's a conventional energy source for France and a conventional alternative to North America? I don't know..

As for Non-conventional energy.. I put this at energy sources that produce the least amount of environmental waste but are completely unpractical to implement. My example would be hydrogen powered cars because there is no current infrastructure to support Hydrogen fuel gas stations if consumers were to buy them.

I'm just purely guessing here - please share if you disagree or agree with my definition. Also If anybody knows what category other energy sources like wind, solar, and thermal energy belong to, I'll be super grateful.

Hey guys, what are (in your opinion) the advantages and disadvantages of any of the following types of hydro generation.
Fossil Fuel
Nuclear Power
Hydroelectric
Solar Power
Tidal Power
Wind Power
Thanks In advance!

Alright, we cannot drill, we cannot have nuclear power.

I wish I could take a leak into my car and make it run, but the technology is not there right now.
How long before we can make semi-trucks and airplanes that can run on renewable energy?

I've seen these vehicles with 30 batteries on them, but they can hold no more than a suitcase (if they have a trunk at all) and the waste from the batteries is more toxic than gasoline emissions. By they way, they cannot run at freeway speeds.

K Im doing a survey to see what the most efficient energy alternative is. The choices for the survery are water power, wind power, geothermal power, nuclear power, biomass power, or solar power.
*Note if you can, give reasons why this is the best one

I am for it because it is better than nuclear power, which will destroy everything around it's radius and then some. With wind power it is better for the environment.

What's your opinion and why?