finding the right energy

I want to take a simplified view of energy today. First off, why do we need energy?
A. lighting: the original use of energy - old folks still refer to energy companies as the light company. People want to see when it's dark - to read, to work more, to see what went bump in the night. No changing this, shy of taking a more aggressive approach to daylight savings time. Bulbs are pretty darn inefficient, and new sources such as fluorescent, halogen, and LEDs are better but people tend to prefer the yellow-y glow. Oh well, we should be able to mimic that soon (if not already) with LEDs.
B. computers/audio/visual - your cell phone, your mp3 player, your laptop with the battery that always goes out. In general these things are pretty efficient, and manufacturers are driven to make them more so - despite the energy crisis - for portability and longer use
C. all things mechanical (transportation/dishwashers/lawnmowers ) - here's where things get interesting! Basically we like our mechanical energy as something that spins, since spinning things are compact (compared to things moving out along a straight line) and easy to change into something else.

How can we make things spin?
1. an engine - powered by gasoline/petroleum
2. a motor - powered by electricity
3. animal power - yokes, bicycles
4. air pressure/wind - those cool air-powered tools at the mechanic's
5. water pressure/waterwheels
The latter three are hardly taken seriously in many products. Why? Three reasons:
i. inefficiencies in overcoming the discrepancy in energy type (spinning to reciprocating, spinning to spinning at higher speeds, etc.)
ii. inefficiencies in overcoming the discrepancy in time (i.e. storage - you can make energy now, but want to use it later)
iii. inefficiencies in overcoming the discrepancy in space (transmission - you can make energy here, but you need it there).
Of course, there's also the issue of amount. You can probably walk to the store, but the amount of energy required to walk to Toronto is not something you plan to expend on your next business trip. At any rate, these inefficiencies need to be better understood before we rule these seemingly lo-fi solutions out (3, 4, and 5). Hybrid energy is about combining these 5 to solve your problems as opposed to simply relying on one. Using multiple energy sources is a painful way to do the task at hand, so "hybridding" should be driven by manufacturers doing this for you seamlessly.

But it's hard to resist the lure of that electric motor. The good thing about itis that it takes the same input as A and B above - electricity. So, that's why we need energy - specifically electrical energy.

Problem is, electricity is also prone to the "inefficiencies in overcoming the discrepancy in space." There was a talk the other week on fallacies of the hydrogen economy. I couldn't make it, but grilled some who went. It seems the speaker had no hidden agenda but was merely pointing out the absurbity in using energy to make hydrogren to translate back into energy as opposed to making energy in the first place. That's a fine thing to hang your hat on, and I imagine one could do quite a bit of math to prove it - although fairly straightforward.

Here's my concern: No one would agree that Duracells (or Energizers) would solve the energy crisis. But, still, we use batteries all the time. Why? Aren't you listening?! Because of the discrepancy in space - they're portable. What else is portable? hydrogen, gasoline, and well us - assuming we're going along for the ride.