Oil shale is a pipe dream that may come to pass in 50 years. But none of us living today will ever see a benefit from the technology. Typical nuttiness of college professors whose favorite three words are "woulda, coulda, and shoulda."

The most viable alternative is to build nuclear plants as fast as we can. That's technology that is mature, easily implemented, and provides huge energy resources.

Solar, wind, bio-diesel, oil shale, all darlings of the libs, but none will cut our dependence on Arab oil for decades or maybe centuries. Build nuke plants now. Declare a national emergency, and get 'er done.

I agree with the Right Reverend.

Just my $0.02 cents' worth, but a (very) long time ago, I heard that there are approximately 400 years' worth of Uranium (Isotope 235?) reserves on Earth. Building nuclear reactors using U-235 (I think) would exhaust the world's supply that much faster.

The solution was to produce "breeder reactors," which would produce the Plutonium from the U-235 needed to fuel nuclear power plants virtually indefinitely.

Just wanted to add that if it adds to the understanding or debate in any way.

Just my $0.02 cents' worth, but a (very) long time ago, I heard that there are approximately 400 years' worth of Uranium (Isotope 235?) reserves on Earth.

Over 99 percent (99.2745% to be exact) of all naturally occurring Uranium is U238. U235, the only one that is fissionable, only makes up 0.72% of all naturally occurring Uranium.

The fissionable U235 is extracted from Uranium ore (which is mostly U238) by a very complex process including turning the ore into a gas and spinning it through centrifuges to remove the heavier U238. What is left is U235 - the fuel of most nuclear reactors in the world today. U235 is desirable as a fuel for fission mainly because it works well in a Pressurized Water Reactor at reasonable temperatures and pressures. It also, due to its nuclear physics characteristics, is inherently stable. A nuclear explosion in a U235 reactor is impossible.

There are many of people in the field that think that there's plenty of Uranium for the foreseeable future. Here's one, a nuclear engineer, who explains the Uranium supply issue clearly. His conclusion is:

Whatever the merit of these groups’ goals, these arguments are based on a false premise. Long-term uranium supplies are simply not a real problem. Even if (in the distant future) uranium ore does get really expensive, market forces, and nuclear technology, are equipped to handle it. Advances in extraction technology, along with higher ore prices, will exponentiate the recoverable reserves. Breeder reactors, which will become more economical in 50-100 years, will eventually appear and eliminate all supply issues. All indications are that we will have plenty of time (50-100 years) to develop such breeder technology, before the cost of ore really starts to impact nuclear economics. This is true even under the highest nuclear power growth scenarios.

Building nuclear reactors using U-235 (I think) would exhaust the world's supply that much faster.

Given the information above, I think you might see that your statement is incorrect for a couple of reasons. First, U235 is refined from ore containing mostly U238 and that won't change and based on the engineer above, there is a nearly unlimited supply of Uranium.

The solution was to produce "breeder reactors," which would produce the Plutonium from the U-235 needed to fuel nuclear power plants virtually indefinitely.

There's no such thing as a perpetual motion machine, my friend. A breeder reactor places U238 into a high neutron flux generated by fissioning U235. Some of the U238 atoms absorb a neutron, which transforms it to PU239 - Plutonium. That is exactly how we get nuclear material for nuclear weapons - we make it because PU does not occur naturally. PU239 is obviously fissionable, but is much more dangerous to use in reactors - lacking the built-in safety factors in U235.

Just wanted to add that if it adds to the understanding or debate in any way.

I appreciate you input. This needs to get discussed and often. The fact is, had the environmentalists not prevented it, by now the US would be at least 90 percent nuclear for electrical power generation and could also have used nuclear energy to provide heating in major cities - nearly for free. In some European countries they do that now.

The environmentalists caused so many delays and cost overruns by demonstrating, suing in the courts and getting restraining orders, that the energy industry abandoned nuclear energy for fossil fuels like coal - heavy pollution sources. Had they not been deterred, another factor which would be greatly different is that we'd be watching the first experimental fusion reactors being tested right now.

Fusion reactors work on the principle of putting two atoms together under great heat and making a single, third atom from the two. This process releases tremendous amounts of energy and the only byproduct is pure, clean water. It is what makes our massive hundred megaton thermo-nuclear bombs work and it is the engine that powers the stars, including the sun.

The fuel for this system is unlimited and nearly free - the oceans. Both the US and Soviets were in a head-to-head race to build a fusion reactor, but the US dropped out of the race in the face of environmentalists and their attacks on nuclear power. Too bad.