Energy Costs to Rise 'Viciously' Without Atomic Power, IEA Says

Energy will become "viciously more expensive" and polluting if governments don't promote renewable and nuclear power in the next two decades instead of burning coal, the International Energy Agency said.

Global demand for energy is set to increase 40 percent by 2035, the Paris-based agency said today in its annual World Energy Outlook report. Consumption will rise 1.3 percent a year to 16.96 billion metric tons of oil equivalent in 2035, spurred ... Full Story »

Posted by Fabrice Florin - via Patrick LaForge, Wil Kristin (t)
Tags Help
Editorial Help
Posted by: Posted by Fabrice Florin - Nov 9, 2011 - 9:52 AM PST
Content Type: Article
Edit Lock: This story can be edited
Edited by: Fabrice Florin - Nov 9, 2011 - 12:53 PM PST

Reviews

Show All | Notes | Comments | Quotes | Links
Dwight Rousu
2.1
by Dwight Rousu - Nov. 10, 2011

Some truths, and huge gaps in analysis. Sounds like a pimp job from the nuclear industry.

Oil and coal will get more expensive with population increase and passing peak oil, but nukes are not the answer. Nuke policy socialize the costs to health, water, environment, long term waste storage costs into eternity, while privatizing any profits. The best and cheapest alternatives are not mentioned, including conservation, wind, solar, and population reduction.

See Full Review » (12 answers)
William Hughes-Games
1.8
by William Hughes-Games - Nov. 10, 2011

What totally biased claptrap

Have a look at the Daly interview of Bill Clinton a little further down the page. Take into account the real expense of coal (health effects, for instance) and renewable energy is competitive with coal. Better still the price of renewably generated electricity is decreasing day by day and all the indications are that it will continue to do so. We still have waste from the Manhattan project sitting above ground and haven't found a way to dispose of it. Take the true cost of ... More »

See Full Review » (7 answers)
Fabrice Florin
3.7
by Fabrice Florin - Nov. 10, 2011
See Full Review » (10 answers)
Patricia L'Herrou
4.0
by Patricia L'Herrou - Nov. 10, 2011

a lot of information about costs and demands for increasing energy around the globe is presented here, by the iea. while that agency has a built-in bias perhaps for nuclear energy the information sounds reasonable.

other energy voices also have looked to nuclear power to fill the gap until alternatives have become so widely available that oil coal and nuclear would be much less vital. given the lack of political will and financial stability today nuclear power still seems, in comparison, much less deadly overall.

See Full Review » (5 answers)
Frank Whitman
2.9
by Frank Whitman - Nov. 9, 2011

something does not add up I WILL HAVE MORE LATER

See Full Review » (6 answers)
Perfectarc
4.7
by Perfectarc - Nov. 9, 2011
Disclosure: Perfectarc is involved in this story as the subject (review not included in overall rating). Help
See Full Review » (3 answers)

Comments on this story Help (BETA)

NT Rating | My Rating

Ratings

3.1

Average
from 8 reviews (50% confidence)
Quality
2.9
Facts
3.0
Fairness
2.6
Information
3.0
Insight
3.0
Sourcing
3.0
Style
3.0
Accuracy
3.0
Balance
3.0
Context
2.7
Depth
2.3
Enterprise
3.0
Expertise
3.0
Originality
3.0
Relevance
3.3
Transparency
3.0
Responsibility
3.0
Popularity
3.8
Recommendation
3.5
Credibility
4.3
# Reviews
4.0
# Views
5.0
# Likes
1.0
# Emails
1.0
More
How our ratings work »
(See these related stories.)

Links Help

No links yet. Please review this story to add some!