Holy crap, there is a lot of misunderstood science out there. I don't even know where to begin...
Ok, let's start with fuel cell technology: fuel cells don't USE electricity, they generate electricity by allowing for a reaction between a fuel and an oxidizer. Think of it as a battery, but with an external supply of reactants so it can continuously produce power so long as there is a supply of the reactants. The technology dates back to the mid 1800s, but it has never been widely used because it is very expensive (the anode catalyst must be platinum, which currently sells for over $1700 per ounce!). It is a vital technology in the space program since they need a way to produce power for computer, instruments, heating (a big one which solar power is totally inadequate for), and so forth. Additionally, the by product of the fuel cell reaction between hydrogen and oxygen is water, which means that they only need to carry hydrogen and oxygen in reactant tanks, and not a separate supply of water.
Speaking of water... it is NOT 66% hydrogen. Hydrogen has an atomic weight of 1.00794, whereas oxygen has an atomic weight of 15.9994. There are two hydrogens to one oxygen in a water molecule (probably where the misapprehension of 66% comes from), so the ratio is 2.01588:15.9994, or 12.5% hydrogen by weight.
With regard to petroleum... we are running out, but we are still a LONG way off. It is interesting to note that "experts" have been predicting that the world "only has a few years of oil left" since the late 1800s. Probably the best example of this is President Jimmy Carter's speech on April 18th, 1977 where he said the following, "World consumption of oil is still going up. If it were possible to keep it rising during the 1970s and 1980s by 5 percent a year as it has in the past, we could use up all the proven reserves of oil in the entire world by the end of the next decade." WRONG! "World oil production can probably keep going up for another six or eight years. But some time in the 1980s it can't go up much more." WRONG AGAIN! I could keep going; his speech is full of dire predictions, all of which proved to be wrong. Even today, people are crying about the dwindling supplies of oil. This is simply not true. We still have many decades of easy-to-obtain light, sweet crude (the good stuff). That's really what is running out. But after that is gone, we have massive reserves of oil that takes a little more work to get, such as oil shale and the bitumen or "oil sands" deposits of which there are huge reserves in Canada and Venezuela. It is estimated that 2/3 of the world's petroleum is in the form of oil sands, which means, we haven't even used up the 1/3 that's easy to get at. Suffice it to say, we have probably a couple of centuries worth of oil left, but certainly we have at least 100 years.
That gives us 100 years to come up with some revolutionary, new energy production technology. And that's what is really required here. Wind and solar are a bust! They don't produce enough power, cost far too much per KWH, and are a logistical nightmare (trying to ties miles of windmills and/or panels into the grid, not to mention dealing with the fact that their energy production is sporatic and the grid MUST have stable, steady sources of power to operate correctly). Nuclear power is our best bet to carry us through until something new is invented. However, for nuclear power to really shine, we would need to build new plants... not a few here and there, but hundreds! That's the only way we can replace all of the coal-fired plants, and that will make electric cars actually make sense.