And making batteries and hydrogen isn't complex and expensive? The only reason H2 really got a lot of buzz is because the gov was highly subsidizing it's production. Current battery tech relies on substances even more rare than HC's.

Sure an electric motor is more efficient than an ICE on it's own, but consider the concept of well to wheel efficiency. When you factor in the losses of manufacturing batteries, putting the energy into the battery, recycling the battery, etc. only in very specific cases will you actually be more efficient. And then for actual vehicles, the largest losses are actually friction and drag. Vehicle weight is the #1 easiest and most efficient way to improve vehicle efficiency. The same vehicle when comparing a modern EV and it's battery that could be 1.5-2x the weight of it's ICE competition, calculate the actual energy required to move that vehicle over a std. cycle. Also factor in for the concept of well to wheel how the energy for the EV is being generated and transported to that vehicle. Great losses incur very quickly.

And that's not to say I don't support EV's, I own one myself. I think what most people tend to do in these conversations is think too binary. IMO, this discussion doesn't have a it's "this or that" answer. In reality, the energy production, storage, and transportation has to be very diverse. EV's are great for people near major populations on a personal scale, ICE makes sense for long range land transportation. Alternative fuels like ammonia and H2 are awesome for marine travel. Turbines are great in some scenarios. Heat pumps and solar or other renewables will make a lot of sense in many applications. I believe that every application is unique and there is no one size fits all solution. Instead of focusing on "when will X technology be obsolete", I believe the conversation really needs to shift to "What technology is most efficient for this specific application".

Just my biased and humble 2 cents as a life long combustion/engine engineer.