If we can mass produce "cleaner" fuels, I'm all for it!

I think there is absolutely nothing wrong with them. There are pros and cons for all fuels; it is up to us to pick the ones that cause the least damage to the environment and that are still economical to produce.

Any fuel which can stop the wars we are involved in, and the future one (I can see one very soon) AND environmentally friendly, I am all for it.

I eagerly support the production of alternate fuels, though right now most of them use as much energy in the production as current fuels do. In the meantime, we can easily wean our dependence on foreign oil by driving smaller cars fewer miles. We have a severe obesity problem in America. Why not leave the keys on the kitchen counter and walk or ride a bike? Two problems solved at once.

For cars and trucks, I am all for bio-diesel. Not only is it cleaner and totally renewable, but it would help our farmers out as well. But for powering and heating a home, I am stuck. We have been looking in to solar panels, solar tiles and wind generators and they are all so expensive, that it will be hard for the average person to convert their home. Sure, they may pay off in the long run, but I don't have that kind of money to lay out up front.

Two problems with most "alternative" fuels are that they either require energy to produce (e.g. biodiesel, ethanol, hydrogen, etc.), or the process of extracting them and/or refining them is cost-prohibitive (clean coal, oil shale, tar sands, etc.) An additional problem is that oil extraction/transportation/refining/consumption is *massively* subsidized. This makes it difficult for other fuel sources to compete with petroleum either on a net-energy-extracted basis, or a nominal-price-to-the-consumer basis. In order to make non-petroleum-based fuels viable, we need to massively rethink how we allocate energy and transportation costs. http://www.icta.org/doc/Real%20Price%20of%20Gasoline.pdf

In the renewable energy academic circles, the big emphasis remains on only using agricultural crops for fuel when there is absolutely no detriment to food supply. (e.g. affecting prices such that others can't afford their staple food, taking away land, etc.). This comes into conflict more than one would imagine. Also, fair practices must be assured. Famous case of rainforest being razed, great environmental damage, massive amounts of CO2 into atmosphere, because Dutch were buying biofuels from SE Asia. The Dutch were so conscientious about this though there was a lot of responsibility accepted on their part for creating the market which led to the burning of the land. http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/01/30/business/biofuel.php That said, switchgrass (for pellets for heating) can supposedly grow where not many other food crops could survive. Jatropha is lauded as excellent in terms of the total energetic-cycle (what it costs energy-wise (eg. chemical fertilizer, etc.) to grow and process plant vs. energy one gets out of it). I can't see alternative fuels as having more than a niche market though. Numbers-wise, they couldn't provide for all of us. Too much competition with land for food. I suspect even if there were more vegetarians in the world... (you know, since it takes more land to grow food to feed a cow for a person to eat than it does to grow vegetables for that person to eat instead).