We all jumped on Top Gear for suggesting that we would be charging our Tesla Roadsters with wind turbines but, whilst Mr. Clarkson might have had the scale wrong, Stanford University's Mark Z. Jacobson says that wind is the way to power our Tesla Roadsters. But more than that he suggests that the government help us do that on a grand scale.

Mark Z. Jacobson is the Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Director of the Atmosphere/Energy Program at Stanford University and has recently completed a work studying the complete end-to-end impact of alternative fuels for new vehicles. What's different about this work is that it looks at the environmental impact, e.g. global warming, the human impact; land use, mortality through pollution and the cost to the US in terms of our dependence on foreign oil. Once assessed, the results were then ranked to see how they stack up against one-another. The result is compelling; Ethanol fairs worst whilst the leader comes out as wind power generation for a world full of battery electric vehicles.

In order of good to bad, he ranks in conclusion:

1. Wind power used to create electricity for Battery-Electric vehicles

2. Wind power used to create Hydrogen for fuel cell solutions

3. Concentrated Solar Power used to heat water and hence create steam to create electricity for Battery-Electric vehicles

4. Geothermal energy to create electricity for Battery-Electric vehicles

5. Tidal energy to create electricity for Battery-Electric vehicles

6. Traditional Photo-Voltaic solar panels to create electricity for Battery-Electric vehicles

7. Wave power to create electricity for Battery-Electric vehicles

8. Hydro-power energy to create electricity for Battery-Electric vehicles

At this point Mark concludes that we're at a 'cost to the environment' that has become significant. All of the previous solutions have little waste output and environmental impact, he continues on into the 'Not recommended' zone:

9. Coal-fired power stations with full output capture to create electricity for Battery-Electric vehicles

10. Nuclear energy to create electricity for Battery-Electric vehicles

11. Corn Ethanol used to burn in conventional engines

12. Cellulose Ethanol used to burn in conventional engines

Further more he adds "The US could theoretically replace all 2007 on-road vehicles with BEVs powered by 73,000–144,000 5MW wind turbines, less than the 300,000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO₂ by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15,000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020".

Some say that we don't need this sort of investigation to conclude that burning ethanol might be a bad idea, I think that we do need these studies to clarify and create meaningful information to act upon. I like to talk about how governments are the vehicle to affect these changes, if you'll excuse the pun but, who will build these wind turbines and the infrastructure required to distribute the power? If you're looking for a way to stimulate the economy, perhaps this should be on the list.

In my opinion, this work should be our reference; it's the answer to the whole fuel-cell v. battery v. nuclear v. petrol alternative debate; I plan to print a pocket edition and bore friends and family to death with it; you have been warned!

You can read the full text published by the Royal Society of Chemistry at: http://www.rsc.org/delivery/_ArticleLinking/DisplayHTMLArticleforfree.cfm?JournalCode=EE&Year=2009&ManuscriptID=b809990c&Iss=Advance_Article 

MPT