The New York Times reports on the opening of the new Shchuchye chemical weapons facility in Siberia, a project funded by $1 billion in U.S. aid money to safely decommission dangerous Soviet era weapons that could easily fall into the wrong hands (when the Soviet Union dissolved, these materials were guarded by a simple bicycle lock).  As part of the Nunn-Lugar initiative, it was a project frequently threatened on both sides.

Senator Lugar recalled that he often had to fend off Congressional opposition to the Shchuchye project, especially from Republicans who said that American aid was allowing Russia to spend its own money on bolstering its military.

But Senator Lugar, who plans to attend the opening ceremony on Friday, said that on an earlier visit, a single gesture showed that the storage site endangered the whole world.

"I took one of those shells,"

...

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

...