Brookings Study Calls Solar, Wind Power the Most Expensive Fossil Alternatives

Posted by timothy on Saturday August 9, 2014 @04:41AM from the but-they're-also-the-sexiest dept.

turkeydance (1266624) writes A new study [PDF] from the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank, argues that using solar and wind energy may be the most expensive alternatives to carbon-based electricity generation, even though they require no expenditures for fuel.....Specifically, this means nuclear power offers a savings of more than $400,000 worth of carbon emissions per megawatt of capacity. Solar saves only $69,000 and wind saves $107,000. An anonymous reader points out that the Rocky Mountain Institute finds the Brookings study flawed in several ways, and offers a rebuttal.

2 of 409 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Funny money by oldhack · 2014-08-09 04:46 · Score: 5, Insightful

"$400,000 worth of carbon emissions", it says. What, monopoly money?

--
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
The Brookings Institution? by jeff13 · 2014-08-09 06:08 · Score: 5, Insightful

The Brookings Institution??? Why would anyone give a damn what some think tank, er, thinks?
By definition, a think tank's job is to simply rationalize their clients opinion.