I agree, Laura, those fuels are on their way. But there are significant bumps along the road. For one, once alternative fuels get some traction in the market -- beyond their current single diget share -- the price of oil will come down, again making it attractive. Oil will look particularly attractive is there continues to be virtually no environmental restraint on its use.
I like your attitude, Cabe, to wait for a better option to any fuel-burning vehicle. I wish there were more people who shared it, particularly among the people in the industry making the decisions about what people drive.
All of the alternative fuels are based on solar power, either more directly or less. Using vegatable oils takes a bit of fuel to plant and harvest the feedstock, although it takes less if the feedstock is waste from other products. The various bio-diesel products using processed animal oils also depend on solar to raise the feed for those animals. And electric power to charge battery vehicles may come from some sort of fuel driven generation, although it may also come from hydro-electric sources, which ultimately are solar powered. So most vehicle movers already consume fuel in one way or another.
My preference would be to use liquid propane as a fuel, since the technology for those engines is well developed and the needed infrastructure for distribution is well understood. But widespread LP use would also have quite a few challenges, including the fact that at least half of the drivers in the US would have not a clue about how to dispense fuel into an LP powered vehicle. So safety and avoiding spillage would probably be show-stopping issues there.
Mydesign, interesting question about solar energy for vehicles. I remember hearing something about that back in the 60s, meaning people were looking in to it. My guess is there are two problems: 1) the same old problem of energy storage, but more important 2) the energy density isn't high enough to power a car, and doing so would require enormous collectors as well as enormous batteries. But that's just a guess. Does anybody know?
I had the same reaction as oldguywithtoys: the fuels are essentially the same chemically--which is why diesels, anyhow, can be drop-in replacements--so a pipeline break isn't going to produce anything worse with petro-fuel than with biofuel.
Biofuels are manufactured substitutes for fossil fuels. They're still oils and gasses that have to be moved from the point of manufacture or refinement to the point of use. It doesn't matter whether the liquid flowing through a pipeline is pulled out of the ground or manufactured: it's still oil and a pipeline break is still a problem. The Arkansas leak, in and of itself, is not a reason to demand a switch to biofuels.
Ann, there are lots of R&D is going for alternate fuels. As of now only electrical vehicles are in market using alternate energy sources. Why researchers are not looking for solar energy for automobiles, any particular reason?
Two new technologies from Stratasys, created in partnership with Boeing, Ford, and Siemens, will bring accurate, repeatable manufacturing of very large thermoplastic end products, and much bigger composite parts, onto the factory floor for industries including automotive and aerospace.
These new 3D-printing technologies and printers include some that are truly boundary-breaking: a sophisticated new sub-$10,000, 10-plus materials bioprinter, the first industrial-strength silicone 3D-printing service, and a clever twist on 3D printing and thermoforming for making high-quality realistic models.
Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies.
You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived.
So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.