The cost of photovoltaic cells have consistently dropped 5 to 10 per cent per year for the last 40 years. Doesn't sound like much, but if the trend continues (and I'm confident it will), by 2050 the cost will be between one-tenth and one-hundredth of what it costs now and that will make electrolysis of water coupled with fuel cells the most cost effective and unlimited energy source. It's also totally non-polluting.

There's not much we can do to hurry the process, it will happen without government involvement, and there's plenty of oil till then, so we might as well just wait and not waste too much money taxpayer money on other energy research.

Mr. Judd;

What a weak collection of wishing it were true technologies. Except for the nuclear option, everything else is a beautiful theory slain by ugly facts, like "it doesn't work". Like hydrogen - it would work except that (1) we can't make it and (2) can't store it effeciently and (3) can't use it cheaply. But except for those points it's wonderful!

As the article notes, the cost of manufacturing fuel cells has decreased by 95% since 1990.
There's no reason to believe that trend won't continue.

As for making hydrogen, I could literally begin making it in my kitchen sink in thirty minutes, as could almost anyone else.

The real sticking point, as AOG notes, is storage.
Lick that and we're in business.
Since we can already make practical vehicles that have room for large tanks, such as busses and heavy trucks, I'm confident that consumer hydrogen fuel cell vehicles will begin to be sold by 2010.

But, Michael, you are confident about everything!!

Face it everyone, oil production has peaked. We will get some amalgam of these technologies over the next ten years just for the fact that the cost of oil will be going up sharply and it won't be coming down again. Michael thought that oil would be back to $35/bbl by now. The energy game will not reward the optimists - it will reward investors, though.

Article in the NYTimes today, that says: "The United States, land of gas-guzzling S.U.V.'s and air-conditioned McMansions, might do well to turn to the country some Americans love to hate for lessons on how to curb its reliance on imported oil: France."

No mention of lower French GDP, GDP growth or population growth. Charts of numbers unadjusted for GDP, GDP growth or population growth. NYTimes refuses to take responsibilty for sponsoring anti-nuke liberal politicals and not raking them over the coals for their anti-nuke idiocies. NYTimes Does not run daily editorials demanding Yucca mountian opening and advanced nuclear fuel reprocessing.

No discussion about Global Test.

Peter B:

Part of my great charm. ;·)

Robert Duquette:

I rather doubt that I predicted lower oil prices with such precision and certainty, but no matter.
You're still confusing temporary, current events with long term trends.

For instance, two major hurricanes and a tropical storm have hit the Gulf of Mexico in the past two months; oil production there is still 30% below normal.
Also, there's some civil and political unrest in Nigeria right now, dramatically dropping production.
Neither example is a long-term factor.

The world is nowhere near peak oil production.
You don't have to believe me; just believe that I might be right, and read a few short articles about Canadian oil.

Mr. Herdegen;

Making hydrogen out of what? Water and electricity? But where does that electricity come from? The article wasn't about fuel transport but about "where our energy comes from". And as the article notes, there really isn't anyplace for the hydrogen to come from except other power sources.

Yes, that's true.

What a "hydrogen economy" would allow us to do is to shift our energy sources away from less reliable or more highly polluting sources.

Instead of burning gasoline in 100 million vehicles, we might build some coal-fired power plants, with super-scrubbers.
We'd shift to a resource that America has a century's supply of, and reduce net pollution, although some previously unpolluted areas might become polluted under a scheme like that.

Or, use wind or solar power to generate hydrogen.
I know, I know, it'd take a million square acres of solar energy farms, but we're very land-rich in America, and there are plenty of open spaces that aren't much used.

Michael,

If you string enough one-time events together, you get a trend. There will always be some problem with a suppler somewhere in the world. Such problems wouldn't cause price spikes unless supplies were tight. You are also overlooking two factors: demand is increasing, and production for many supplier countries has already peaked. US production peaked in 1971, North Sea production peaked and is declining, several other suppliers have peaked. New production from Canada will be needed just to meet new demand and offset dropping output elsewhere.