Had a few myself whilst in Iraq. Pretty good eats.
Better batteries? Pure electric? Look, I'm not just trying to be an argumentative jerk, but we're back to: HOW do you generate that electricity? The most environmentally friendly, and VIABLE, is nuclear. But the media and TMI killed that off - and the crisis in Japan ain't gone make it viable any time soon. Do you know how many people have been killed in the US by nukes? THREE - all army contractors that made some really STOOPID mistakes out in the Idaho desert. TMI didn't hurt a soul, and, just like the Army contractors, the operators pretty much did everything they could to break that plant over about a 3 day period. The US and western allies operate a BOATLOAD (no pun intendeed) of reactors, (SSNs, SSBNs, CVNs) NONE with a containment building. Chernobyl? HORRIBLE Russky RBMK design, the miracle(s) with Chernobyl are 1) only one has gone BOOM, and 2) some Eastern bloc countries are STILL operating those stupid things. Look up "positive coefficient of reactivity" and "negative coefficient of reactivity" - long story short: western designs tend to power down the hotter they get, RBMK and like get HOTTER as they increase in power, making them tend to run away. PLWR, CANDU pebble beds, those are the way to go.
Hydrogen is NOT green - not until they find a "green" way to produce it. It is NOT an energy SOURCE (like fossil fuels, and nuclear), it is an energy CONVEYOR. I wanna save the planet as much as anyone, but as long as fossile fuels are used to generate the hydrogen, it actually makes more sense to just burn the stuff in an internal cumbustion engine.
Before he died, Wyatt Earp was interviewed where he admitted he was no where near the fastest draw - but he pointed out that being accurate with your first shot was by far the most important criteria