Fossil fuels will be around for a while.

Hydrogen is certainly a contender for future energy but it takes energy to produce Hydrogen so I consider Hydrogen more of a storage medium. Solar is probably a good contender for producing Hydrogen as long as it can be done near a good water source. And of course if it's near a good water source there will be clouds. Hydrogen does have storage issues. Hydrogen embrittles steel and it has to be stored at high pressure so containers have to be made from something other than steel. You definitely don't want your high pressure fuel tank to be brittle for a moving vehicle. You can store Hydrogen at low temperature to get around the high pressure requirement but if I recall correctly the sea level pressure temperature of liquid Hydrogen is 23K. Kind of chilly. Liquid Nitrogen is 77K.

I suspect it will be greener to use Hydrogen in fuel cells to produce electricity to run your vehicle. Hydrogen certainly burns well, but it needs oxygen, and rather than have tanks of both Hydrogen and Oxygen in your vehicle, air will probably be used for an internal combustion engine. That means oxides of Nitrogen will also be produced.

I am not impressed with the current Electric Vehicles. They lack range and do not recharge quickly, reducing their utility for long trips. Better battery performance is needed, in charging speed, weight, and energy storage. Current EVs are OK for commuting, but not for working vehicles that require more power. E.g. tractors and snowplows.

Even if fossil fuels are not used to produce energy, they are used for a LOT of other things: medicines, textiles, fertilizer, plastic, etc. Before fossil fuels get dangerously low we have to find ways to synthesize all those other things as well as change energy sources.

Fossil fuels will be around for a while.

Hydrogen is certainly a contender for future energy but it takes energy to produce Hydrogen so I consider Hydrogen more of a storage medium. Solar is probably a good contender for producing Hydrogen as long as it can be done near a good water source. And of course if it's near a good water source there will be clouds. Hydrogen does have storage issues. Hydrogen embrittles steel and it has to be stored at high pressure so containers have to be made from something other than steel. You definitely don't want your high pressure fuel tank to be brittle for a moving vehicle. You can store Hydrogen at low temperature to get around the high pressure requirement but if I recall correctly the sea level pressure temperature of liquid Hydrogen is 23K. Kind of chilly. Liquid Nitrogen is 77K.

I suspect it will be greener to use Hydrogen in fuel cells to produce electricity to run your vehicle. Hydrogen certainly burns well, but it needs oxygen, and rather than have tanks of both Hydrogen and Oxygen in your vehicle, air will probably be used for an internal combustion engine. That means oxides of Nitrogen will also be produced.

I am not impressed with the current Electric Vehicles. They lack range and do not recharge quickly, reducing their utility for long trips. Better battery performance is needed, in charging speed, weight, and energy storage. Current EVs are OK for commuting, but not for working vehicles that require more power. E.g. tractors and snowplows.

Even if fossil fuels are not used to produce energy, they are used for a LOT of other things: medicines, textiles, fertilizer, plastic, etc. Before fossil fuels get dangerously low we have to find ways to synthesize all those other things as well as change energy sources.

It's gonna take a LOT of different technologies to get to the future. We drive four hybrids in our family. Using them doubled our family average gas mileage and cut our long term total cost of car ownership almost in half. They work for us. But my wife's thinking solar-powered battery electric, because her employer just installed solar over all of their rooftops during a plant expansion project.

I'd love to see Hydrogen fuel cells take off, but the overall efficiency isn't really there yet, and it will take years to build all the filling stations we need.

Every technology from gasoline internal combustion engines to battery electric has a long list of advantages and disadvantages. Call my kids in 40 years and ask them, "What won?" I'll bet it's something we haven't seen yet.

The James Webb Space Telescope and CERN are re-shaping what physicists and mathematicians theorize about how the universe works. I wouldn't be surprised if half our assumptions about math, physics, and chemistry are re-directed in the coming decades, and that THAT leads to new sources of energy.

"I wouldn't be surprised if half our assumptions about math, physics, and chemistry are re-directed in the coming decades, and that THAT leads to new sources of energy."
You speak the truth!!! The tragedy is that so many sheep/lemmings/idiots are repeating the mantra - "science, science, science, follow the science!", when they are not intelligent/smart enough to understand science, and/or have failed to observe that "science" is far from static, and many absolutes are reversed every 10 years!!! as more research/discoveries have led to a continuing better understanding. (Not even to mention those who lie about "scientific absolute truths" for the furtherance of their agenda.)

Loren - in Beautiful Baguio City

Wind and solar are cost-effective? I keep seeing solar being put on homes and it is expensive to install and hope the people installing it have a new roof prior because you will need to remove the soar prior to re-roofing. I have worked on solar roof panels in the past and know if the system is more than five years old the parts are not available.

Everything I have read about wind power is hugely expensive to install and maintain. The tidal generation has been on the market for many years but lacks political backing.

Fusion power is a great answer yet political backing seems lacking from one political group that backs electric cars, wind, and solar while another political backing does not seem to back it because it could potentially remove profit from the table.

It seems that we should support the people of America rather than a social construct (Capitalism) that is all about making money or pushing a political agenda (either of the two we have to choose from.)

Consumer Reports does it annually for most cars.

Estimated total cost of ownership of a Prius is $.44/mile if you keep the car for 100,000 miles and pay off the loan. That’s including cost of the car, finance charges, sales and property taxes, insurance, tags, title, gas, oil, tires, 12-volt battery, and by-the-book maintenance.

We think that’s about right, although for us it’s less because we keep them for over 150,000 miles.

Think:

> Brakes last over 100,000 miles, due to regenerative braking.

> No starter to wear out.

> No alternator.

> Built by people who actually give a $#!t.

> Engine gets minimal wear because it only runs about half the time. It’s off most of the time the car is not moving, and when the car goes down hill or at low constant speeds on level ground.

> The battery and electric motor provide torque at low speeds. The engine charges the battery and helps accelerate.

> Taxi companies and Lyft/Uber around the world use Prius v wagons. We saw them all over Spain, France, and Italy. At least half the taxis in San Diego are Priuses - usually the v. Many in Cabo San Lucas are Priuses.

The USA is the only country in the world so obsessed with pickups and SUVs. Before about 1990, we had more sense (and wagons and pickups).