Originally Posted by goober

Wow, 32% of demand met by wind, even if that's just the peak number that is impressive.
The wind blows reliably in a lot of the US, and the power of the wind is awesome, and tidal power you can set your clock by.
Nuclear is good for base loads, where you just put out a steady load, but it doesn't react very quickly to changes in demand, you need gas turbines for that.

But a combination of nuclear, wind, tidal and gas turbine would seriously reduce greenhouse emissions.

Coal is abundant, but it creates a lot of CO2, and a coal plant puts out more radiation (from radium) than a nuclear plant, not to mention the mercury that goes up the stack. But the coal industry spends a lot on lobbyists, which is probably why alternatives don't get a lot of attention from the government.