From the title of the article I was hopeful that they were going to actually calculate the real costs of each fuel. But I was disappointed, as they often just made statements like "with govt incentives" or compared to gasoline "with taxes." I have looked for years for a truly comprehensive calculation of all the factors of alternative fuels, but i've never found it. Subsidies, taxes, infrastructure costs, etc, are almost always hidden and hand waving ensues. This article was better than most in that at least many of the factors are mentioned, if not explicitly costed.

Obviously, energy is a huge issue. A cooperative panel of very smart specialists should be able to put out a report truly examining the costs of each alternative as well as the real costs of the current main fuels. For instace the cost of oil should include a "defense cost factor" (i.e. middle east and oil lane protection of supply by our defense forces), and some value put on the cost of polution by its use. But it should not include artificial taxes or subsidies. Ultimately, the taxation should match the hidden costs to our govt/people through defense and pollution, so that oil price reflects "true" cost.

Then the cost of use should be applied for vehicles/homes/manufacturing. With solar cells you have count manufacturing cost, as with battery powered cars, the (unsubsidized) cost of the battery is critical in finding true cost of the electric propulsion. I see occasionally good articles on one fuel or another (e.g. scientific american has explored hydrogen for use in vehicles or other energy uses). But really I have never seen a truly comprehensive report, that the public really needs to see what the real options are for now and the future, and what are the true costs.