I would keep a rather open mind since neither plug-in nor H2 will work everywhere for everyone. Declaring one the winner over the other, certainly means a form of blindness of anything but our views and immediate realities.
Now, if you live in a moderate climate and predominantly urban setting then I too, see a plug-in as an obvious and instant winner. I would go as far as closing the matter shut on that condition as well.
I would however be a little cautious in suggesting a plug-in design for anything or anybody else.
Case in point:
The plug-in tests in our area of the country have not materialized the benefits (efficiency and reliability) that are observed elsewhere. This is obviously a disappointing shortcoming, predominantly for folks who would likely operate these vehicles in the northern climates.
On the other hand, H2 has much hype still propelling it and not much in terms of visible results... but the progress being made in the fuel cell department along with the compactness and the emerging ability to operate at very low temperatures is no less encouraging to some of us than the progress being made in the plug-in arena.
And while I welcome both techs, the only difference between myself and somebody favoring a plug-in, is that H2 would work better for me. Even converting natural gas into H2 would be a significant improvement for some folks (myself included).
xoham:
Yes, there are many companies and teams doing R&D into fuel cells. But like anything else, we always produce better prognosis by keeping an eye on the "best-of-breed". I hardly think the folks that put that and other reports together were in that group.
Besides, the report identifies specific contexts and applications where plug-in would be best and I agree with their conclusions.
But as I said, plug-ins are not YET for everybody and it is unlikely that it will be anytime soon.
So perhaps keeping our minds open is the wiser approach. Last time I checked, the world was a little bigger than our backyards.
Cheers;
MSantos