I wouldn't dismiss ethanol as a viable option quite so easilly. It is true that ethanol made from corn is very inefficient. One estimate that I've seen shows that it uses just as much energy to produce this type of ethanol as you get in optput. Ethanol made from sugar or different types of grass are dramatically more efficient. Unfortunately, the corn/agriculture lobbies have put up some pretty sizeable obstacles to the development of this type of ethanol. This has the makings of power struggle to see which form of ethanol becomes the dominant form. (Kind of like the struggle between beta and vhs format for VCR's). Bill Gates just recently acquired 25 % of a refinery company that has the flexibility to make either form of ethanol. Ethanol is being added to regular petroleum right now in many parts of the country. Fuel cell technology is far down the road in my opinion.
Kevin R is right about LNG. However I do not agree with his dismissal of coal to liquid/gaseous fuels. This process is well understood and is used in industrial quantity in South Africa. The US government invested millions in research after World War II, but cheap Arabian oil cancelled the research. It and natural gas are the wave of the future. I would propose that the government set out to buy all the military's fuel from coal conversion plants to jump start the industry.
Forget fuel cells- they don't work with enough power to really be effective. Liquified natural gas is the wave of the future. Ethanol and fuel from coal and coal gas require too much energy to make to be cost-effective. LNG, that's the ticket.
Ethanol. Top 4 Answerer in Business Finance. (Vote for me)
