[geodosch]

A car powered by a fuel must be designed to process that fuel. An electric car doesn't care where its power originated from: coal, natural gas, methane, hydrogen, nuclear fission, solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, etc. If new sources are created, such as nuclear fusion, that will work too. People are beginning to realize that the alternative to fossil fuels will not be any one 'magic bullet' cure, but a combination of all of the above.

Another big advantage with electric is that we have a distribution system in place. Most cars would be recharging at night, when the power grid has excess capacity. In fact, not only is that capacity available, it's currently a problem for them, because when power demand drops drastically at night, they can't simply switch-off a bunch of generating stations. So having the load on the system actually helps balance-out the power grid.

Many are touting hydrogen power as the future. I think hydrogen cars are the way forward for the oil conglomerates. If we all transitioned to electric vehicles, they would be out of business. With hydrogen, we would need a distribution network just like we have with gasoline. So I have no doubt the ExxonsMobil and ConocoPhillips of the world are looking forward to providing that service, so they can continue to price gouge us. (The electric utilities are heavily regulated, so they can't just bump their prices by 50% because a bomb went off half-way around the world.) If you look at hydrogen technology, it has a long way to go before it's practical. Maybe 5-10 years away. The fact is, they've been telling us it's 5-10 years away for the past 20 years. I think it is: a) a way for the oil industry to keep its monoply, as described above, and b) a red herring to get us to stop looking at other alternatives to gasoline in the meantime. I would bet that, even if there was a viable hydrogen solution, it would be kept hush-hush until there really was no more oil to pump out of the ground, and then miraculously it would be available, just in time for us to switch over to.

For the cost of electric vs. gasoline (or diesel), it shouldn't come down to that argument. I didn't buy my Prius because I thought my fuel savings would offset the price of a new car I didn't need at the time (though with $4 gas, it might be reality). I did so to conserve a dwindling, finite resource, and to cut back on carbon and other emissions. Obviously, a solution that costs tens or hundreds of time what we pay now (such as the current case with hydrogen) is not viable, but even if it costs slightly more in pure $$, we can't use that as an excuse to resist moving away from fossil fuels.