| Submit your comments on this article |
| Science & Technology |
| Nuclear Alternatives Compared (Graphic) |
| 2011-03-16 |
| Graphic at link shows land, carbon, availability, and cost equivalents of coal, gas, wind, and nuke power. The article this is buried in is fairly tame, but still WaPo. The graphic is good. |
| Posted by:Bobby |
| #4 Most vehicles in Perth run on natural gas. And every one has been locally converted, because you can't buy a NG car off the production line. The car companies and governments thru their subsidies have wasted billions on hybrid and electric cars. While the market has got it right, here at least. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2011-03-16 16:45 |
| #3 Remember candidate Barack Hussein Obama said, "If someone wants to build a new coal-fired power plant they can, but it will bankrupt them because they will be charged a huge sum for all the greenhouse gas that's being emitted." He has not retracted that statement or his policy, which has been blocked by Congress. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2011-03-16 16:37 |
| #2 There are alternatives within the nuclear options: Thorium reactors, the new Toshiba-class self-contained mini-reactors, most MSM talk omits these from consideration. When there is enough energy at low enough costs, converting coal to the liquid equivalent of petroleum is feasible. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2011-03-16 15:57 |
| #1 I vote for massive conversion of coal to natural gas then .. since %50 loss in electrical... natural gas for trucks and autos and a nat gas home or neighborhood fuel cell would be real nice. |
| Posted by: Water Modem 2011-03-16 14:00 |