That, and some reading I was doing led to do some curiosity reading into hybrid cars and alternative fuels. During my reading, I came across the cartoon below, which got me thinking about possible drawbacks of alternative energy sources.
The first useful piece of information I was able to find was this Popular Mechanics .pdf, which, since I had already been biased by the cartoon above appeared to be making a case for electric cars. However, as I looked at the chart, I could not help but notice that an electric car would take 1 ton of coal to produce the electricity required to travel the same distance as a gasoline powered car would take 4.5 barrels of oil for.
I'm no expert on natural resources, but one full ton of coal seems a bit disproportionate to 4.5 barrels of crude oil considering we consume millions of barrels per day. Do we even have that much coal? Seems to me, we could run out of that just as easily as we could oil.
It certainly goes beyond that! If I recall the historical information on coal correctly, we moved away from it for two reasons: 1. It was not as efficient; 2. Oil, bad as at is, is better on the environment.
In some regard at least, there is a happy ending. No, sadly I have not found a truly efficent alternative energy source. However, I did find the full Popular Mechanics article that the earlier .pdf accompanied, and it does an excellent job of explaining not only the various alternative fuels, but also the pros and cons of each. If you have the chance, give it a look. It's a good read.
That being said, what are your opinions on alternative fuels? Are you willing to spend more for cleaner fuels? If cost was not a consideration, which fuel source would you use?
1 "neo-politik" is a self-invented term for new interpretations of politic movements, issues, etc. which too numerous to name here, but are often highly distorted from the original meanings of the terms.