I understand the concern over drilling in environmentally sensitive areas, and I share the skepticism over the oil companies' desire to "drill everywhere," but by the same token, I get a little tired of hearing one group of people focused just on the supply side (the "drill everywhere" crowd), and another group talking only about reducing demand. To stabilize the cost of energy, we need to do both! Neither will accomplish much by itself.
As far as alternatives, I'd like somebody to please name one that's even remotely viable.
Electric cars? Great, if you never need AC, heat, or other accessories. Plus the weight and bulk of the batteries is a huge negative. We desperately need a better battery than what's available today, but very smart people have been working on battery technology for over a century, with only incremental improvements.
Ethanol? Thermodynamically, economically, and morally bankrupt. Takes more energy to produce than it contains, consumes vast amounts of water and land, competes with crops that could be used for food, it's hydroscopic, so it has to be transported in trucks rather than pipes. Overall, a total joke of a fuel, which would be a lot more funny if it isn't also one of the largest scams ever perpreptrated on the American taxpayer.
Hydrogen? Ugh. Takes VAST amounts of electricity to produce (since it doesn't exist freely in nature), has miserable heat content per unit mass, requires a huge tank to store it, doesn't burn very well in IC engines, and fuel cells are horrifically expensive. Other than that, it's great stuff.
Natural gas? Many of the same problems as hydrogen, except the production problem. And with any gaseous fuel, you can kiss your trunk goodbye.
Hybrids? Truly impressive feats of automotive engineering, but, given the fact that the have a whole separate motor, and the drive system to switch between the two, they will always be at a significant cost disadvantage relative to the tried-and-true single IC engive vehicle. It is very cool that they get better mileage in the city, which is the way most people drive, than on the highway, and for some people, they may be a good choice. But you really have to calculate the ROI to see if it makes sense for you. Also, while they may be viable in the wealthier countries, their high cost will limit their adoption where their efficiency is really needed, in the fast-growing developing world.
Overall, gasoline is a near-miraculoous fuel, fabulously well suited for automotive use. It's a fallacy to think that gasoline dominates simply because it already has an established infrastructure, or, even more ridiculously, because of some sinister collusion between the oil companies and the auto makers back in the murky dawniing of the automotive age. Its advantages in ease of extraction, ease of processing, ability to transport in pipes, its convenient, compact liquid form at room temperature, and its high heat content, are simply not going to be overcome by any of the alternatives available today, even given the fact that we have to import its stock from some not-too-pleasant countries. Barring some breathtaking breakthrough, I think we need to accept the fact that gasoiline and diesel are by far the best fuels on the planet, and focus on using them as efficiently as possible, by the automakers doing everything they can to improve the efficiency of their engines, increasing the availability and usage of public transportation as Flash says, driving less, etc. In other words, we need to do everything we can to extend the life of this wonderful fuel, because it will be a very dark day for humanity when we finally run out.
