November 22, 2011

Google Logo Add Us On GoogleAdd SciAm

xkcd: the cost of electricity

By David Wogan

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American

Several readers sent word about this massive xkcd chart about money. If you haven't seen it yet, check it out. It is both massive and fascinating and is a handy way to compare the scale and breadth of everything from iPad's to the national deficit.

In the "billions" section is a breakdown of how much it would cost to power the United States for a year, by fuel type:

According to the chart, wind, hydro, biomass, advanced combined cycle natural gas, conventional coal, and geothermal are all in the same ballpark in terms of cost. Of course, overall resource supply isn't taken into account (is there even enough hydro capacity in the United States?), and neither is geographic availability (geothermal isn't available everywhere, for example). But I do think this chart does do a good job of laying out direct costs and some of the external costs for various fuel types.

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

I would love to see energy efficiency and conservation thrown in for good measure. Maybe next time!

Overall a great chart that obviously took a long time to compile and put together. The data sources are available here.

Have an interesting link or story? Let me know.

David Wogan is an engineer and policy researcher who writes about energy, technology, and policy.

David's academic and professional background includes a unique blend of technology and policy in the field of energy systems. Most recently, David worked at Austin Energy, a Texas municipal utility, implementing a Department of Energy stimulus grant related to energy efficiency. Previously, David was a member of the Energy & Climate Change team at the White House Council on Environmental Quality for the Obama Administration.

David holds two Master's degrees from The University of Texas at Austin in Mechanical Engineering and Public Affairs. While at UT, David was a researcher in the Webber Energy Group, where his research focused on advanced biofuel production to offset petroleum use in the transportation sector. David holds a Bachelor's of Science degree in Mechanical Engineering from The University of Texas at Austin, where he researched nuclear non-proliferation measurement technology.

David is a 2013 Aspen Institute Journalism Scholar, joining a select group of journalists from Slate, ABC News, and The New York Times.

David lives in Austin, Texas. Follow along on Twitter or email him at david.wogan@me.com.

More by David Wogan

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe