War as a means of securing energy resources is a familiar narrative.  Peace as a means of securing energy resources is rather less typical . . . The New York Times today has a wonderfully ironic story on how decommissioned Soviet weapons are being used to keep the very houses warm that once they threatened to destroy.  Who'd have though the leftovers of the Cold War could be warming up the hot suppers of thousands of Americans?  Certainly adds another layer of vested interests to the START replacement discussions.  If one of the defining conflicts of the 21st century will be that of battling climate change, as Mikhael Gorbachev suggests in the Moscow Times today, then cooperation on ...

President-elect Barack Obama has made no bones about wanting to jump-start the renewable energy markets – pledging $150 billion for the development of biofuels, solar and wind power, other alternative energy sources during his first term.

But what might the new administration mean for more traditional – and more reliable –energy sources?

Oil is always the first energy source to spring to mind. But it’s hardly a solo act – coal and nuclear make up the other two-thirds of the top fuel trio. Coal delivers 50% of U.S. electricity needs, and nuclear power brings another 20% to the table.

The cold truth is that demand for energy of all types – and especially electricity – is going to keep advancing, domestically and worldwide. And developing alternatives to coal and nuclear will take time. For instance, tying wind and solar into the existing power grid will be enormously expensive and is likely

...