With the energy topic prominent in the news, on the forefront of the upcoming U.S. elections and at the top of the global list of sustainability needs, governments, industries and companies are looking toward alternative fuels and unconventional energies to help reduce the environmental footprint, lower emissions and bring the global warming threat to a more manageable level.

The controversial topic of nuclear energy as a power source isn’t getting a lot of attention — as there are an array of seemingly more viable renewables involved in the “alternatives” debate — but it is getting some. Scholars, industry experts, political leaders, economists and a variety of other analysts are all reviewing, debating, discussing and weighing pros and cons. Where does it stand in the line up of alternatives (and even with conventional fossil fuels) — behind or in front of ethanol, biofuels, electric hybrids, gas power, hydrogen, waste … the list is nearly exhaustive.

Some sit on the negative side of the equation: thinking too much energy is required to start up plants already in existence, and some think it’s too expensive and will take too long to build and get new plants operational.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, August 26th, 2008 at 8:35 am and is filed under Sustainabililty. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.