Which would you prefer; cost of fuel reduced by 50% or technology developed to reduce fuel consumption by 50%?

. 
Reduced fuel consumption would mean less pollution. This post was edited by Kittigate at January 18, 2022 2:47 PM MST

Then the answer is electric vehicles.

That would actually be the best option, I think. Electric will take over then there will be trillions of gallons of fuel in surplus not being used. Fine, that will help clean up the atmosphere, at least for a while.

Then there is the problem disposing of spent batteries... What will be the final solution?

I've always wondered ... which would cause more damage to the environment?
Drilling for oil ... or mining for minerals for battery-powered vehicles?

Now, if only we would use the electric technology of recycling spent nuclear fuel rods into "diamonds" to power everything.

If only all of our intellectual masturbation on the Internet could be harnessed as an energy source!

Right!

Indeed. Not everyone knows that.

Still are being charged by fossil fuel. 

LPG is, BeV is (currently, pun intended), "green" hydrogen would not be. Derived from seawater cracked by solar power, no fossil fuels required.
BeVs can also be charged by a non-fossil source. Wind, solar and nuclear power. Rooftop solar is gaining ground everywhere that grid supplied electricity is expensive. American power is far too cheap, solar is less tempting. This post was edited by Slartibartfast at January 19, 2022 7:12 AM MST

Most people in the world have fossil fueled electricity.    To charge you are still using fossil fuels.

Not. With. Hydrogen. And the by-product is plain water.

NO one's electricity at their home (where they would charge their car) is being created by hydrogen.  
The vast majority of home electricity  is created by fossil fuels. 

You didn't actually read my original answer, did you?

I did not read it close enough. Sorry. 

But it still relies on fossil fuels.:

There’s virtually no pure hydrogen on Earth because it’s so reactive. Most hydrogen is made from methane [natural gas] in a process that produces carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Hydrogen can also be made from water using electrolysis, but that requires electrical energy. To get that, we’re back to burning fossil fuels.

Actually we're not, I specifically stated that solar power would be used for electrolysis.

Solar power is not widely used enough or efficient  enough to power the world's electric grid.  Maybe years down the road when they improve  the systems.  So in either case, electric cars still rely on fossil fuels. 

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Solar is more than sufficient for electrolysis. I'm not championing BeV - the range is too limited, the carbon footprint of production too high, the materials not recyclable, charge time too long and, as you continue to reiterate, currently dependant on a fossil fuel powered grid (although solar is rapidly catching up, wind and nuclear also require no petroleum or coal to run).
An electric vehicle powered by H2 fuel cells is none of these. This post was edited by Slartibartfast at January 20, 2022 6:24 PM MST

If it was currently feasible....we would be doing it. 

But until technology  improves it is just a shell game. Plug it in or fill'er up....it still uses fossil fuels. 

https://news.usc.edu/trojan-family/why-hydrogen-fuel-isnt-mainstream-as-fossil-fuel-alternative/

Australia is currently loading a shipload of liquefied hydrogen bound for Japan. The information in your article is out of date.

Solar is still only a fraction of the electricity power in US and most of the world.  That has not changed. And until that does....

Yes, and your exported hydrogen  was made using coal. (This article was published  yesterday)

https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/worlds-first-hydrogen-tanker-ship-test-cargo-australia-japan-2022-01-20/