On average, you have to process about two tons of rock to get one barrel of synthetic oil. The rock expands during the heating process, so you can't put it back in the hole you took it out of (or at least, not all of it). And the kerogen-harvesting process makes the rock carcinogenic, so you have to be careful how you store it.

Newer technology removes the kerogen without digging up all the rock, but that process still has bugs that are being ironed out.

Finally, three barrels of water are needed to make one barrel of synthetic crude from oil shale.

The Bureau of Land Management estimates the shale formation in western Colorado, where a lot of activity is focused, could yield as much as 1.8 trillion barrels of oil. However, that part of Colorado is dry country. It will also probably take a lot of energy to crack the oil out of the rock, though nuclear power could provide that energy.

Royal Dutch Shell is trying to prove naysayers wrong — it is investing a lot of money in oil shale. Petrobras, one of the world's best-run and most forward thinking oil companies, is also experimenting with oil shale. So maybe it will work eventually. But right now, the technology isn't there yet.

In fact, the problem with many solutions that sound good on paper is that the technology just doesn't work yet. But ...

Here Are Three Energy Solutions That Work Right Now

These three sources of energy can work — today — to power our homes and rev up our cars.

Solution #1: Wind Power

Critics will point out that the wind seems to stop blowing when you want electricity most — on hot summer days. And that is a problem. However, a study last year by Stanford University shows that wind power from interconnected farms can be used as reliable base load electric power.

As one might expect, not all locations make sense for wind farms. But legendary oilman T. Boone Pickens says the United States should take advantage of the so-called "wind corridor," stretching from the Canadian border to West Texas. Energy from wind turbines built there could supply 20% or more of the nation's power by 2030, according to a new report from the Department of Energy.

U.S. electrical demand is expected to grow another 39% through 2030, so wind would help fill the gap.

And although wind is expensive, costs per unit should come down with a larger scale operation. Besides, with the cost of coal and natural gas rising, wind is already becoming more competitive.

Solution #2: Solar Power

Unlike wind, we tend to get the most solar power when most electricity is needed — during hot summer months. And the technology is working now.

There are two general forms of solar power. The first is PV or photovoltaic, which converts energy from photons directly into electricity. The second is thermal, which uses the sun's heat, concentrated to heat liquids to transfer that heat, boil water and turn a turbine.

A rooftop photovoltaic system is fairly expensive — about $35,000 to $40,000, though the cost can be reduced through tax incentives and rebates. In sunny Florida, where I live, the system would probably pay for itself in 15 years or less — a lot less if electricity rates go through the roof, as Florida Power & Light is now threatening.

Solar thermal is also expensive, though cheaper than PV-based solar power. The Mojave Desert in the southwest is home to the largest solar thermal system in the United States.