Thats an ignorant view of how things really are. We have plenty of hydrocarbon based fuels left. problem is, the Tree Huggers left us needing, not wanting.

For your info, Nuclear energy is the least polluting energy maker on the planet. Nothing comes close. Nothing even comes close to its energy output. Only one thing in the entire world could match a reactor for energy output - Grand Coulle Dam. No other energy producer, not coal, nor hydro, nor nothing comes close. With nukes, there is no emmisions, nothing. Just basic waste, and very little of it. as for clean energy, nothing will ever come close except maybe a fusion reactor or anti matter reactor. Two techonologies we need to push for.

-S

I see coal based fuels as just another fossil fuel source. Fine to exploit while it lasts but will eventually run out.

The link i just posted talks about a renewable long term solution:

There was a story on oil sand / oil shale mining here in australia on the 60 minutes program. It is possible to produce oil and do so at a cost less than the current price of oil, but what about the damage to the area they dig up to get at it? Not to mention all the waste that is produced (more CO2 than producing a standard barrell of oil.

As one of the figures that was put up was in all the time of oil sand mining in the U.S. less than 1 km2 has been rehabilitated back to the natural state.

Time to start thinking out side the box for energy production.:yep:

And so long as there is money in oil, invested shall the government stay in oil.

Actually BP was allowed to test in Utah and found a way to extract it for less money than normal oil at the time, and this was back in 2000.

They did some form of chemical process that made it easy.

-S

Y'all ought to check the thread title. Oil shale and sand are NOT synthetic fuel sources.