Current Controversy

Although there are many "sides" in the alternative fuel controversy (solar, hydrogen, nuclear, etc.), it makes the most sense to sum up the two most extreme views: the view that says we can continue to use gasoline as long as we continue to increase fuel efficiency, and the view that says gasoline must no longer be used as soon as possible (no matter which alternative is used). Of course, there are numerous views in between these two extremes.

The one extreme side of this controversy says that there is no problem with continuing to use gasoline as the main fuel type. They point out that, although we may have reached "Hubbert's Peak" (a predictive model that shows that we have reached the maximum production capabilites for fossil fuels), trends in vehicle development will decrease the use of gasoline to such a degree that the amount of oil left in the world will be a non-issue. Some believe that achieving 200 or even 300 miles per gallon in normal vehicles will be possible. Plus, it would be impossible to change today's fuel infastructure from gasoline. And, on the pollution side of the argument, they point to advances in plasma technology which could allow these high-efficiency gasoline solutions to have significantly reduced CO2 emissions.

The other extreme view in this controversy states that we must cease use of gasoline as a fuel as quickly as possible. They say that the fact that we have reached Hubbert's peak should be cause for alarm, and that, although this "peak" still means there is gasoline left in the world, the remaining fossil fuels will be extremely difficult and expensive to procure. In addition, some state that CO2 levels in the atmosphere are becoming dangerously high, pointing to the global heating trend over the last century or so. They support supposed "zero emissions" solutions like hydrogen power or electricity generated from solar, wind, or nuclear power.