Not sure what you mean by 'super batteries'. Batteries are energy storage devices, i.e., they only store chemical energy. By definition, they take more energy to build than they release.
There are new devices called "supercapacitors" which are really super--for capacitors. But you cannot run a car on them.
There are only a few primary power sources available. These are solar, wind, hydro, nuclear and fossil.
Solar and wind are too dilute to be useful. All useful hydro sources are already fully exploited. And fossil fuels are (in reality) just concentrated solar energy, amassed over millions of years.
All fossil power involves combustion. Fuel cells, steam engines, turbine engines, I.C. engines--all use combustion. Even if the fossil fuels are cracked to make hydrogen, it still involves combustion.
Hydrogen combustion liberates water, which is a greenhouse gas. Anything else also liberates CO2. Even experimental devices which 'crack' gasoline to H2 on-board the vehicle will eventually have to have heavy carbonaceous sludge removed periodically.
TAANSTAFL!
--Boris
By super batteries I mean those that (1) hold charge for long periods and (2) require large series of banks of batteries to be able to power even a home.
If I understood you correctly you said it takes more energy to build a battery than they release. Speaking of a rechargeable battery that would not be so. HOWEVER, the chemicals and materials used in battery construction are quite toxic and they must eventually be discarded someplace in the environment.
Since they wear out on about a 5 year cycle, then you'd have to buy more and pollute the environment even further.
My point is that I don't think solar will be any cleaner than is natural gas or some other combustible fuel.
What do you think?