What oil dependency? Show of hands, please. How many are aware that there's 2.6 trillion barrels of oil in shale in Utah and Colorado?
How many are aware that there's a process that will extract useable oil from that shale at a cost of about $12 to $28 per barrel?
Yep. <a href=http://www.oiltechinc.com/profile.html>Oiltechinc.com</a>
There's no need to panic. All that's necessary is that any polician seeking to place all of the nation's oil shale in a national park in exchange for campaign contributions from the Saudis should be shot. So, assuming the politicians don't do what they do best, and muck things up, we've got more than enough oil for ...um... forever.
Kelzie listed some practical problems of hydrogen-as-motor-fuel. Outside of those, I don't see the capital showing up to rebuild the entire liquid-fuel infrastructure that we've spent a century building. That cost has to be added to the cost of hydrogen-as-motor-fuel.
Hydrogen could replace natural gas as a home heating and cooking fuel, and as an electric generator fuel. Why anyone would want to is a mystery, because of losses and inefficiencies in making the H2 gas in the first place would probably cost more per kilowatt-hour or Btu.
Nulcear power has it's place. Because of Traitor Jane, however, the general public of the United States is convinced that anything "nukular" is deadly dangerous. The American public has always been more hormonal than cerebral. They're "stuck on stupid", as the popular saying goes. Even many engineers I know have these same culturally instilled baseless fears.
Needless to say, TMI was based on the old Naval Reactors design philosophy of high power density and a light water moderator. Modern designs address many of the concerns that 1970's technology did not. Personally I'd much rather have a modern nuclear plant in my neighborhood than any plant relying on fossil fuel combustion. Its far cleaner and far safer.
Nuclear plants are quieter and kill fewer birds than wind-mills. Which isn't to say that current cuisinart designs can't be modified to be spotted-owl-safe. Is it worth the expense?
Fusion technology is yet to be proven. No point in basing plans on that until it's ready.
It's all fine and good to talk about conservation as a means of reducing oil dependency. The problem is that there are physical limits to efficiency dictated by the laws of thermodynamics. So even if the per capita demand for energy declines, the population of the nation is growing. And that means the net energy demand will continue to climb. The energy needs of the US will show a 50% increase by 2030. And the energy demands of China, India, and elsewhere are growing even faster as they finally start to industrialize and move away from their primitive roots.
If we continue to rely on fossil fuels, we will continue to emit CO2 as the inevitable by product. Replacing natural gas with hydrogen ends the problem of CO2 emission...if the H2 is produced by solar or nuclear or some other non-combustive method. However...H20 is also a green-house gas. Again, gotta balance costs over benefits.
And thus all persons concerned about "global warming" and rising CO2 levels should be ardent supporters of nuclear technology as a safe and clean alternative to fossil fuels.
