This is a really great discussion.   Lots of information with no name calling.   Oil will run out so pick your poison:
1.   Coal burning plants- huge initial investment.   Most polution
2.   Gas burning plants- huge price volatility
3.   Nuclear- very mixed signals.   Clean air people love it because it is the cleanest energy.   Others hate it because of storing waste.   Bad press and huge safety issues (terrorists and regulations)
make it hard to build more nuclear planats
4.   Wind- very economical but an eyesore, noisy, and issue with birds.   Amazing how many "environmentalists" are fighting them. THe best wind area in the country is from Minnesota to Texas
5.   Solar- great concept but so far very expensive.    In MIchigan where I live you can only get 40% of your energy needs from solar.
6.   Hydro- great if you live in those areas.   Very expensive anywhere else.
7.   Geothermal- I have a geothermal heating and cooling system in my house.   It has reduced our energy bills by $1,000 per year.   It is very efficient (4 times a normal furnace/2 times a normal air conditioner) The problem is that it is more expensive than a conventional system and most people won't spend the initial investment.   IN addition, the loop makes it harder to install so most builders want no part of it.   The DOE used to promote it, but dropped funding.   There may be about 1 million geothermal out there.   If there were 20-50 million out there it would have a huge impact on our energy needs.   Too bad- proven technology, highest comfort level, lower bills, no carbon monoxide, no outdoor unit.   

My guess is that we will not get into hydrogen or fuel cells until we have to.   That seems to be the way things work.   I hate to repeat myself, but this is my issue- so here goes.

WHY NOT ENFORCE EXISTING BUILDING CODE LAWS?   We have a national buidling code and 20 states don't meet it.   My state of Michigan adopted the national code in 1994 and than repealed it in 1995.   This has cost residents 900 million dollars in higher utility bills. (I am on the States energy committee) Our current building code is 60% lower than the national code.   The only penalty was that we had to write a letter to the DOE explaining what we did.    For political reasons we never even wrote the letter.   Houses use more energy than cars.   If we would just force the 20 states to adopt the national code (by reducing federal funds to states that don't) it could have a huge impact on our consumption of energy.   That logic makes me a radical, but I continue to promote it.   In addition to worrying about hydrogen cars, I say we need to insulate the basement.