Well, keep in mind that if we were willing to go that route, we could reprocess our spent uranium into new fuel. It takes a fair bit of energy to do so, but it would last us a long time. Uranium is also refinable from seawater, though this is a little more expensive than traditional mining.

Don't forget that, if we really wanted to, we could build reactors using plutonium and fuel them with our sizable stocks of decommissioned weapons. This has not been brought to commercial reality yet (uranium is relatively tame, but plutonium is nasty stuff), but it could do in a pinch. Hey, we have to get rid of those old bombs sometime.

Actually, Brad, I've heard up to $40B for enough plants to meet our reprocessing needs. The question is whether that's worth it to not import uranium from foreign countries (and, as an added bonus, not store nearly as much waste in Nevada). I actually don't think so, but if we do bet heavily on nuclear fission for the future, a reprocessing plant could be an insurance policy against one country trying to screw with our uranium supply.

Reprocessing is an intriguing idea but unless we nationalize the nuclear power system, nuclear just isn't going to be any more viable than it is now in US. Plus the cultural shift that would have to made to make it viable it a big hurdle. Folks like to point to the French model but they've been working on streamlining the process for 30 years with a nationalized system. Frontline has a brief article on the culture in France regarding nuclear power. And with the cultural trust of science and scientists being at a low here in the States we've got  big hill to climb. www.pbs.org/.../french.html

But I think another problem with reprocessing the plutonium buttons from the nuclear warheads (aside from most of the plutonium being locked up for future "warhead" upgrading) is that the default position would be to privatize the process or contract out to private companies whose concerns about nuclear security and safety protocols have proven to be marginal at best. Take a look at the case history of Rocky Flats Facilities that processed plutonium and then reprocessed it for a while before it's decommissioning and final demolition. It was a veritable hot zone of radioactive and hazard wastes. The contractors were repeatedly fined, fired and replaced for various reasons.

If we really want to be serious about nuclear power being a bigger part of the domestic energy production picture we need to be honest about how we go about it. And if following the French model means nationalizing it and making the DOE responsible for the operations so be it but we need to admit that the current model we have in the US blows.

Nukes And Energy IndependenceNew Republic, DC - 6 hours agoWe already import more than 90 percent of our uranium, and while a great deal of that comes from Canada, almost one-third comes from Russia. ...

Nukes back out coal, not oil. So nuclear energy does not contribute to energy independence, only cabon reduction.

I have made a study of our oil consumption. I conclude that with CAFE standards already promulgated, additional 1 million barrels per day of domestic production and introduction of domestically produced compressed natural gas, we can become dependent only on NAFTA countries for our energy. This is a reasonable goal. Both candidates agree that we should be free of Middle East and Venezuelan oil by 2018. Venezuela has no market for its oil outside the US.

" "Nukes back out coal, not oil. So nuclear energy does not contribute to energy independence, only cabon reduction. "

True--unless we start electrifying transport, via plug-in hybrids or the like."

Plug in hybrids will certainly be introduced in connection with the new CAFE standards. Nukes would still be backing out coal or, perhaps, gas Brad. I see you have picked up on what I have said repeatedly on your site about plug-ins. Compresssed natural gas may even be bigger. I warned you about the impending collapse of oil prices and you scoffed. Oil professionals like me are not the devil incarnate.Please do not ignore what we have to say. We get it. The world wants to reduce demand and carbon emissions. We can live with that and make a good living at it while still keeping the country prosperous. Just don't punish us and drive the true cost of energy (after taking subsidies into account) to unaffordable levels.

The subsidy for oil is 1 cent per gallon, compared to 51 cents per gallon for ethanol and $1.00 per gallon for biodiesel. These are bad ideas. Eliminate all subsidies and promulgate carbon emission standards and get out of the way. We will all be better off.

Let me know if you want to see my study. I will send it to you personally. I am not interested in posting it on line here. Too many hotheads.