There are myriad energy alternatives for home heating and electricity generation, but choices for transportation are more limited.

On the home heating/electricity generation side, energy sources are abundant; they include natural gas, nuclear, hydro, wind, solar and coal. But each alternative has its own positives and negatives. Determining what source of energy is most likely to develop successfully in the future involves analysing price, feasibility and environmental impacts.

Here are the pros and cons of some home heating/electricity generation alternatives:

> Natural gas. This is one of the cleanest-burning energy sources for home heating. It may also be the lowest-cost source, except in areas such as Quebec, where hydro electricity is plentiful and close at hand. Natural gas supply used to be confined to continents with transportation provided by pipelines but can now be turned into liquefied natural gas and transported anywhere, once the infrastructure is in place.

> Nuclear. Some people consider this a clean, cheap option for electricity generation. However, building nuclear power stations requires convincing the public that well-designed reactors have safety features that will prevent an accidental release of radioactivity. This is easier to do when oil prices are high, says Murray Stewart, president of the Energy Council of Canada in Ottawa. He points out that 37 nuclear generating stations are currently under construction across the globe. Nick Irish, portfolio manager at HSBC Halbis Partners in London, thinks there will be many more.

> Hydro and wind. These are considered very clean sources of electricity but are only possible where rivers can be dammed and where there are good wind conditions. Wind works best in conjunction with other sources of electricity generation; pairing it with hydro is ideal because water flows can be turned off and on. A major drawback to hydro is its big environmental footprint — large areas often have to be flooded and people may have to be moved. The ecological system may also be damaged. Many people find windmills unattractive, and some argue they are a danger to wildlife.

> Solar. This system is currently too expensive for widespread use, although there is hope that ongoing research will produce a much cheaper way of producing the panels used to collect solar energy.

> Coal. More use of coal makes sense on a cost basis and will make more sense when the technology is perfected to capture the carbon dioxide emissions creating by burning coal. There’s already technology to capture the nitrogen and sulphur emissions from burning coal.

Coal is inexpensive — even with the cost of cleaning it up — and there are huge reserves, far more than for more expensive oil and gas. Coal is available in most countries, so security of supply is not an issue. There’s also technology to remove trapped methane or natural gas from coal beds.

> Oil. Although oil’s main use is for transportation fuels, it is still used as a heating fuel and to generate electricity. The issue with oil is its increasing cost, emissions and security of supply. The world is running out of easily found light crude and will have to turn to reserves in remote areas and to heavy oil and oilsands, which require more processing. Low-sulphur gasolines have been available for years, which have contributed toward reducing pollution in densely populated areas. Low-sulphur diesel fuel is now being mandated in the U.S.

On the transportation side, today’s fuels are almost entirely based on oil and, given the cost of alternatives, will probably remain oil-based for a long time. Alternative means of providing power have their own pluses and minuses.

Hybrid cars, whose sales have taken off recently, may be one answer. Irish thinks hybrids will become mainstream within the next few years in the industrialized world, but believes they are too expensive for developing countries. Don Robinson, principal at IFC Consulting in Virginia, believes developing countries will adopt whatever technology is preferred in the industrialized world.

Another transportation-related alternative to oil is liquefied natural gas.

This can be used to make vehicle fuel, including aviation fuel, an economically viable proposition at current oil prices, says Irish.

Ethanol, made from sugar cane, could also be a huge energy source for transportation, says Stewart. Ethanol is 100% clean because the CO2 has already been removed.

@page_break@Hydrogen-fuelled cars aren’t expected to enter the market until 2025 and would require extensive infrastructure. The Paris-based International Energy Agency says such vehicles will be part of the solution; an IEA study suggests that under the most favourable conditions, including government policies giving high priority to reducing emissions, hydrogen-fuelled cars would account for 30% of vehicles by 2050.

This would result in a 13% reduction in oil demand. The impact of hydrogen-fuelled cars and other emerging technologies would be particularly dramatic in terms of emissions, halving them from what they would otherwise be.

Its other advantage is that hydrogen can be made at nuclear power plants. Although this would reduce reliance on foreign oil, it could potentially increase dependence on foreign uranium.

However, producing hydrogen takes more energy to make it than you get back using it as a fuel, says Robinson. Hydrogen also requires an entirely new pipeline system and high-pressure tanker trucks to transport it, as well as a new retail dispensing system. It would also be a serious hazard in locations with cold winters where cars are parked indoors because it is odourless, colourless, highly explosive and leaks easily.

Robinson says technology currently used at oil refineries could be employed in a car engine to reform very light gasoline into hydrogen. Although this kind of car would not be as clean as a hydrogen-fuelled car, it would produce far fewer emissions than the internal combustion engine and would be much safer than storing high-pressure hydrogen itself in a car. IE