Yup, that's right. They've been 'hybrids' for a lot longer than 10 years, because it's been well known for a long time that different machines have different torque and power curves and that one kind can augment another. And the different schemes employed are all examples of 'hybridization', in that they mix things like heat engines with electromagnetic engines. But, you know that, right? Tell me - what's you're ideal engine/frame? A 1958 Chrysler Imperial with a 383? After all, the extra cost of gas for a 10 mpg car isn't that bad. Why would anyone ever want anything different, right? The good old days.
The question you refuse to address other than flippant dismissal is the actual per mile cost of all these schemes. Until it is so much cheaper to get electricity from nukes that nobody bothers to drill for oil anymore, gasoline will beat hydrogen
What's the real cost of gasoline? You say the government shouldn't be involved in making economic choices -- so, should oil companies field their own armies to protect the oil fields? Your assertion that the cost of gasoline is an unsubsidized, free choice, fair market value is laughable. To compare the current cost of other technologies and fuels to oil without putting political and social costs into the analysis is ridiculous and dishonest. So when do you get honest and stop leaving that out of your question? I'm flippant?! You're obfuscating.
As soon as you field your own army to protect your backyard.
You can rant all you want, but if hydrogen was a good idea you wouldn't have to be demanding other people's tax money to promote it. Come on, show us you car and do the cost per mile analysis for gasoline and hydrogen. Look at the different chemical reactions yeilding hydrogen. Look at the price of electricity from various sources. Post it here.
So, do you have an estimate of the political and social costs of oil?