I can't believe I have to respond to an argument on this...
Originally Posted by Kestrel
How do you figure this? Coal was the primary source of fuel for industrial and power generation well into the 1950's. Oil made it's mark through cars and plastics. Wood was used in rural areas. That's about it. The reason costs were low was because a) there was still a lot of easily mined/drilled fuel around b) many industries/companies owned their own mines and provided themselves with fuel c) concern for things like emissions and economy were not yet there and d) we weren't using that much of it.
I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Maybe you just don't know much and you're spouting, but when cars were first developed noone really knew which powerplant would be most suitable...they used gasoline, electric, steam, ethanol, etc.
Having 4 different types of fuel infrastructure, two of which cannot be transported via pipeline and don't exist, will only make matters worse. Add on to that gas and ethanol may be run in the same engine, but hydrogen requires a different fuel storage and feed system, and diesel requires a different block and head. Just the manufacturing cost to offer four lines of engines that will be sold at relatively low volume will be enormous.
I didn't say all in the same car, genius. Maybe Nissan tends to use hydrogen (Sentra, Altima) and gasoline power (Maxima, SUVs), Honda used hydrogen (Insight, FCV, Civic) and diesel (Accord, SUVs) and gasoline (Accord, SUVs, sports cars), GM uses ethanol and hydrogen, etc etc etc. The infastructure will be built when the business strategy is financially sound, just like everything. Extracting oil out of oil sands was never profitable until oil reached $40/barrel, and most said that it would never be profitable. But they found a way. Basic economics, demand of oil will go down as demand for other fuels go up so price of oil will go down...
I already said this in my previous post; in urban environments, electric cars are the answer. The electrical infrastructure exists, and battery technology has improved to the point were it is possible to drive 200-300 miles on one charge and recharge cars in 2-3 hours. We eliminate the energy loss from processing fuel and the associated costs. Sure, electrical generation will need to increase to keep up, but there are many more generation options (coal, oil, gas, nuclear, hydro, solar, etc.) than there are transportation fuel options, and all of these options are available right now, not 10 years from now.
Okay? So electrical is another competing power source right alongside all the other ones I mentioned. Maybe also natural gas will be prominent. Who cares? The specifics have nothing to do with my extremely general point.