At some point in our future, America will have to deal with the global oil production peak, as reported in last week’s issue. The implications go way beyond high gas prices. Much of our electricity is still produced by power plants that burn oil, natural gas, or coal. Oil is expected to peak within the next decade and although coal is plentiful right now, it is still a finite resource and a massive polluter. Natural gas is already in depletion in North America, and transporting it from other areas of the world can be expensive and dangerous. The post-oil transition will be a long-term effort, and will require long-term solutions.

Many believe the transition to the next generation of energy sources will be a smooth ride. That seems unlikely, however, as many of the kinks in the most talked about “alternative energy” sources have yet to be worked out. Here’s a run-down of some of the more popular candidates for the title of “The New Oil.”

Biofuels: Ethanol is one of a number of biofuels that convert organic sources into fuel that can be burned in a modified combustion engine. Also, ethanol is used to cut gasoline to reduce the amount of traditional oil burned. Biofuels are usually derived from corn and soybean crops, but switch grass, hard woods, and sunflower plants can also be used as organic bases.

These days, ethanol is the Elian Gonzalez of energy sources: everybody wants it to have a happy ending because everybody wants a piece of the action. It burns cleaner than fossil fuels, and it gives farmers a huge new market for their crops.

There’s just one catch—it might not produce any energy at all. A recent study by researchers at Cornell University and the University of California at Berkeley found that biofuels are net energy losers—meaning it takes more energy to produce them than can be gained from the final product. David Pimentel and Tad Patzek, the authors of the study, told the Associated Press that it can take as much as 29 percent more energy to turn corn into ethanol, 27 percent more for soybeans, and more than twice the amount of energy for sunflower plants.

Hydrogen: You’ve probably heard people talking about fuel cell technology. The process is complicated, but it basically involves using compressed hydrogen to create an electric current, which may then be used to power machines. Many believe this will replace America’s existing automobile fleet, and that it will allow people to keep driving without polluting the air. (Hydrogen fuel cells only give off water vapor while they are running.)

There are many roadblocks to a hydrogen economy, not the least of which is that right now the process of separating hydrogen atoms from water molecules requires large amounts of energy. Hydrogen cars would still need a base of fossil fuel or nuclear power plants to run at all.

Nuclear energy: Nuclear power plants produce about 20 percent of the electric energy we use in the US. They don’t pollute the air like power plants that burn fossil fuels and can run for years on a relatively small amount of uranium. That doesn’t mean they don’t pollute, though.

Nuclear waste can take centuries before its radioactivity retreats to levels that are safe for human contact. Also, a pair of accidents at nuclear plants—Three Mile Island and Chernobyl—has fueled fears of a dangerous meltdown. Many communities object to nuclear reactors being built in their area because of the risks of contamination. It’s a common problem with industrial development: the NIMBY (“Not In My Backyard”) complex.

Craig Stevens of the U.S. Department of Energy claims the waste can be stored in Yucca Mountain, Nevada a waste repository that the government is trying to get approved for nuclear waste—in the form of spent uranium fuel rods—by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The rods would be stored 1,000 feet below the peak of the mountain and 1,000 feet above the local water table, Stevens said, which would make the immediate surrounding area perfectly safe for humans to inhabit—in about 10,000 years or so.

Wind, Sun, Water: Both wind and solar energy platforms have the advantages of being renewable and emission-free. Wind has more possibilities than solar—you can still have a breeze on a cloudy day—but both have problems of scale.

According to National Geographic, it would take 10,000 square miles of solar panels to provide enough electricity to power the U.S. America has a lot of unused area for wind farms, but the windiest land in the country is in remote wilderness areas. It would take a massive project to connect these farms to the commercial power grid.

Also, the wind doesn’t always blow. The sun doesn’t always shine. Current methods for storing energy have a long way to advance before solar and wind power become a viable option to replace the American electricity infrastructure.

The most plausible scenario for a progressive, post-fossil fuel economy seems to be a patchwork of wind and solar power used on a local level in conjunction with existing hydroelectric power plants. Hydro power accounts for about ten percent of the nation’s needs, but most of the best sites for hydroelectric plants have already been used. Smaller plants that serve localities will need to be created. Working with local wind and solar farms, this could take care of a large portion of our electricity needs, but not all of it. And it doesn’t solve the problem of America’s dependence on foreign oil.

Simply put, we’re going to have to stop driving so much. We’re going to have to reduce our usage of electricity. We’re going to have to change the way we live.

If we were smart, Americans would begin a massive analysis of the way we use energy in our daily lives, in preparation for the Manhattan Project of the new century: building an America that can walk on its own two feet.