HybridArchitect said:
And don't entirely count out hydrogen
Oh, there was a real comment there as well.
Without getting into foreign oil, terrorism (and just the plain old nastiness of liquid fuels), we have an immediate energy crisis that needs to be solved in years, not in decades. The situation is no different now than in the 70's where "we had to go solar and eliminate the need for foreign oil". That was 30-plus years ago, we're no further ahead now, and hydrogen will not be the solution 30 years from now (too much infrastructure required). 50 or 100 years from now, maybe, but not short term.
Basic research should continue - for future commercialization. That's what MIT and such are good at - develop the pure science, license it to the commercial world, and let them produce it for a profit. The Government spending $$$BILLIONS now (or, these days, $$$TRILLIONS) to commercialize hydrogen just won't work in the short-term.
Compare this to battery technology: It works today, but it's too expensive. What happens when you put 6,831 laptop batteries into a car that you or I could buy for $10 each? It works, but there's no economy of scale. Government funding to scale this up, both per unit (maybe 60 or 600 batteries) and quantity (right now, there is NO economy of scale for cars) is a way that government money can be beneficial IN THE SHORT TERM.
Within 3 years (maybe even 1), the Government loans to build plants to manufacture LITHIUM-ION CAR BATTERIES will produce tremendous dividends.
Yes, in 50-100 years we will realize mankind's dream to "power your vehicle from the air" (hydrogen), but that is not going to help any within my lifetime, or even probably my children's.