Ya know, being a cynic and skeptic by nature, I've always wondered about hybrids. Do the "carbon footprint" figures include such things as manufacturing the batteries, manufacturing all the components (controls, motor and such) proper disposal of the batteries (lots of nasty heavy metals that are power intensive to dispose of properly) and the additional manufacturing steps needed to produce them? What about the HP/weight ratio hit from carrying two power and motive sources? Not a lot of efficiency in that, at least to me. I asked at a lot of dealerships, looked online, and no one really says one way or the other. Driving one sure can cut fuel costs, but I do wonder about the overall "power" cost and resulting environmental impact being any better than conventional carbon fueled vehicles.
Being able to build a super car that does a quarter mile in x seconds or tops out at xxx mph is certainly nice, but getting it into the real world is a whole other problem. I can't imagine Joe Consumer driving a BMW, McClaren or Ferrari on his daily commute or taking the family on vacation in his $100,000+ electric ride. Granted advances are being made, but the optimism may be a little ahead of reality. Personally, I'd love a car that didn't need to stop at a gas station, but unless and until an equally suitable source of portable power comes along, it's what we're stuck with. When I was working, my daily commute was 75 miles, each way. I wouldn't want to risk relying on the current, "advanced", levels of electric cars for that nor could I afford one in the first place.
Hydrogen power looked good, until it dawned on the inventors that extracting the hydrogen used more energy than the hydrogen produces. If a way to produce hydrogen that is efficient could be found, that has promise. On the other hand, being powered, effectively, by water is kind of attractive, not to mention cheap to obtain.