I think by now everyone is well aware of the fact that we’re past due to begin serious research into finding which of the new alternative fuels will be the best option to replace gasoline as the major source of energy for our vehicles.

Whether it’s due to environmental factors like pollution and global warming or due to the fact gasoline is a finite resource that for all intents and purposes is shrinking with each passing day, the time has come for us to begin taking the slow and arduous steps towards finding a cheap and renewable fuel source.

Unfortunately, because all of these alternative fuels are relatively untested and still in concept phase, it seems it’s going to be pretty hard to choose which one to go with. And if you go by the results of a recent poll on GasBuddy.com, it appears that we’re pretty evenly divided between the alternative fuels we believe will ultimately power our vehicles.

When asked, “what will be the next best automobile alternative to petroleum?” here’s how nearly 16,000 people responded:

• 33% chose hydrogen fuel cells
• 21% chose biofuels
• 21% chose electric (battery)
• 17% chose unknown/no opinion
• 2% chose compressed natural gas
• 2% chose liquefied natural gas
• 1% chose liquefied petroleum gas

As you can see, not are there a lot of possible options, but we’re pretty well divided between those options. Each alternative fuel has its pros and cons, but it unfortunately it appears that it’s the lack of definitive information that’s making it difficult for us to settle on “the next” fuel.

The results from the GasBuddy.com poll were pretty much in line with a similar poll I ran back in April, which asked, “which type of vehicle do you think will best help solve our environmental problems?” Not coincidentally, hydrogen fuel cell cars came in number one in my poll as well, with 41% of the responses. Plug-in hybrids (27%), electric cars (25%) and ethanol vehicles (7%) were the other responses.

Hopefully over the next couple of years, the world’s major oil companies will reduce their dividends and share buyback programs and start pumping money into alternative fuels. Maybe that way we’ll know which direction we’re going before it’s too late.

While it’s fairly safe to say that most of us are pretty unhappy with the fact that we’re paying more than $3 for a gallon of gas – roughly 40% more than what we were paying less than five months ago- it seems that a majority of us think that these increased prices might actually lead to something positive.

According to a recent poll on Daily Fuel Economy Tip, over 60% of us believe that this latest increase in gasoline prices will bring a greater sense of urgency towards finding dependable alternative fuels.

When asked, “Do you think higher gas prices will bring a greater sense of urgency towards finding alternative fuels?” 63% of respondents stated yes, 28% stated no and 9% stated that they were unsure.

Granted, because the environment and oil tend to be a pretty hot topics as it is, it’s likely that the push for finding reliable, cheaper alternative fuels would have come even without the dramatic increase in the price of gasoline.

That being said, it certainly seems that most people expect these fuels will receive greater attention not because of the environmental impact, but because of the potential financial impact.

So, even though it’s a pain to have to pay more at the pump, if it means that there will be a greater emphasis on the research and development of possible replacements for fossil fuels, I think that shelling out the extra money will be worth it in the long haul.

It looks like biodiesel may be the alternative fuel of the future if ConocoPhillips and Tysons have anything to say about it.

According to a report published on CNN.com, the two giant corporations have planned a partnership that will allow the two companies to create millions of gallons of biodiesel fuel each year.

This agreement seems to make perfect sense: Tysons – one of the largest meat processing companies in the world – will provide ConocoPhillips – one of the largest oil companies in the world – with the raw material necessary to produce one form of biodiesel fuel (beef, chicken and pork fat), while ConocoPhillips will refine the material into nearly 200 million gallons of the alternative fuel, once production is fully ramped up.

Biodiesel fuels have long believed to be one of the most viable alternative fuels available due to the fact it’s renewable, can be produced domestically and, once converted, can be added to regular diesel fuel or be used as its own stand alone fuel.

Unfortunately, biodiesel fuels tend to not perform well is colder temperatures and currently, if added to your regular diesel fuel car’s engine, may void the manufacturer’s warranty.

However, a commitment to biodiesel by two companies of this magnitude will certainly only add to the alternative fuel’s credibility.

After taking a couple of days off to talk about some other things, it’s time to get back to reviewing cars that might be able to save the planet.

Today I’m going to look at biodiesel fuel, which I think is one of the more interesting alternative fuels out there because it is essentially a creative way of turning waste products into fuel for our cars.

According to FuelEconomy.gov:

“Biodiesel is a form of diesel fuel manufactured from vegetable oils, animal fats, or recycled restaurant greases.  It is safe, biodegradable and produces less air pollutants than petroleum based diesel.”

And, the best part is, most diesel fuel vehicles are currently able to run on biodiesel fuels.  Granted, you can’t just run out to the store, buy a bottle of vegetable oil and be on your way; you would still need to be refined before it was ok to use as fuel.

Here’s a list of pros and cons that I was able to pull together from a couple of different online resources:

Pros:

• Is a completely renewable source of fuel.
• Can be produced from products (restaurant greases) that would otherwise be thrown away.
• Emits substantially less hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, sulfur oxides and sulfate.
• Biodegradable and less toxic to handle when compared to gasoline.

Cons:

• Currently, if you try and use biodiesel fuel in your diesel vehicle, it may void your car’s warranty.
• Unless you’re getting waste products from restaurants for free and then converting it to biodiesel yourself, it’s going to cost you more than gasoline.
• Emissions include a slight increase in nitrous oxide, which is commonly referred to as “laughing gas.”
• Tends to not perform well in cold temperatures.

While biodiesel fuels certainly have their drawbacks, it looks as if it could definitely be a very viable alternative fuel.  And, if we can try and set it up in such a way that most of it is produced via waste products, I think that biodiesels should be pushed to the top of the list of possible alternative fuels. 

For more information regarding biodiesel fuels, please check out FuelEconomy.gov and Biodiesel.org.

When gas prices hit record highs last summer, most of the talk about possible cheap and renewable fuel sources seemed to surround ethanol, which a product of carbon based feed stock.  Currently, most of the world’s ethanol comes from either corn or sugarcane.

As a matter of fact, you’re probably using a small bit of ethanol when you drive your cars, as most gas stations have begun to use ethanol – usually less than 10% – as a mixture with regular gasoline.

Unfortunately, after doing some research, it appears that ethanol will help much less with the growing environmental problems than it will with helping to wean the United States off of its addition to foreign oil.

Here’s a list of pros and cons that I was able to pull together from a couple of different online resources: 

Pros:

• Because ethanol is a derived from feedstock, it is a completely renewable fuel source.
• Can be produced domestically from cradle (the harvesting of the feedstock) to grave (turning the feedstock into fuel).
• It can be used by itself as fuel, or can be mixed with gasoline.

Cons:

• Because Ethanol requires so much corn, it’s driving the prices of many food products – such as corn, beef and poultry – much higher.
• In order to farm enough corn to make ethanol a viable fuel source, it’s going to take a lot of land.  Not to mention the fact that farming on this massive of a scale can create its own environmental problems.
• When Ethanol is burned greenhouse carbon dioxide is still released, however less carbon monoxide is released.
• Ethanol contains roughly 2/3rds of the energy per gallon as gasoline.

In terms of being more environmentally friendly than burning fossil fuels, it looks like the jury’s still out.  According to a study published by two Cal-Berkeley professors, ethanol actually produces similar amounts of greenhouse gasses as gasoline.  However, as technologies advance and scientists are able to determine which feedstocks produce less harmful emissions, it’s not unreasonable to think that ethanol will become more environmentally friendly.

One of the major concerns regarding ethanol is weather or not it really is an economically viable fuel source.  Many economists are arguing that because the energy it takes to grow, harvest and process the ethanol is greater than the energy produced by the ethanol, that this is essentially a losing proposition. 

If this is true, I think they are 100% correct, as this means more harm to the environment and to the economy.

For additional information, please check out National Ethanol Vehicle Coalition and Wikipedia.