A person I play tennis with, a civil engineer, believes we need to build 45 new nuclear reactors--better still double that number.

He thinks that if we are to have any chance of getting beyond the impending fossil fuel calamity, we've got to go nuclear. He also thinks manmade climate change is quite real.

In my heart-of-hearts I believe we Americans are still in deep denial: A stranger on a white horse will appear on the horizon at the last moment and bring back the good ol' days to America ... meaning cheap oil and all that it entails.

Of course the ridiculous frat boy in the White House with his recent executive order is still pushing the "more drilling" solution for the fearful and the gullible.

But what about the nuclear power option as part of the mix? I certainly can't dismiss it out-of-hand anymore. John McCain is now recommending that the United States build 45 new nuclear reactors. Does it make sense?

It seems to me in uncertain times we need to be well aware of any "grasping at straws" syndrome or getting distracted from those technologies or policies that have a greater chance of success. The first thing that comes to mind when talking about nuclear power is how much will it cost and how long will it take to build? (Subsidies, waste storage, terrorism, and water requirements for that matter are topics unto themselves).

According to Linda Gunter, the co-founder of Beyond Nuclear, a nuclear reactor takes about 10 years to become operational, excluding the not uncommon construction delays, as have occurred in Europe. The reported cost of one new reactor is supposedly some $12 billion! A logical question is where will the money come from?

Gunter also believes that we'd need around 1,500 new reactors to come on line between 2010 and 2050 to have any impact on global reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Is the world capable of building one new reactor every two weeks?

Oil is not likely to become any cheaper or easier to acquire over the next decade. By any scenario nuclear reactors are not built in a financial vacuum nor can they be constructed fast enough to compensate for oil depletion. It's hard not to believe that the "45 new" nuclear reactors are merely a pipe dream in an election year.

On the other hand, a new technology called PBR or pebble-bed reactor could change the debate on nuclear power. Its proponents believe it's far safer than the old nuclear power plant design, partly because it operates at a much lower temperature. It's also less expensive because containment requirements are not as extreme.

PBR's are more efficient because they will be able to extend the current known supply of uranium much longer. Last but not least, spent fuel handling is less complicated and dangerous to deal with because its design keeps the radioactive component encased in a graphite composite shell.

South Africa expects to have a prototype operational within the next several years and China has invested heavily in pebble-bed research. Of particular importance to many is that it is considered exportable technology.

The unavoidable question is who will control this energy technology in the next ten or twenty years? For a technical discussion of pebble-bed reactors and the South African prototype go to Pebble Making Waves.

Will nuclear power become a serious part of the energy mix within the next 50 years? It remains to be seen. Will solar, wind, and conservation also become a serious part of the energy mix?