Almost 20 Years After The Appearance Of The Prius - Most Hybrids Still Don't Make Financial Sense

If by "make sense" you mean "save money in the total cost of ownership", then yeah :-(

Keep in mind that that is TODAY's story, and that of history. Battery designs are improving as are various other technologies for improving efficiency, so they might be the smart choice in the near future.

after maybe 30 years?

By that time EV tech would outpace it, rendering the Hybrid as a stepping stone or failed technology.

Agent009: It's hard to predict what will happen over the next decade, but possibilities do include the scenario you describe, in which hybrids fall by the wayside as better EVs gain market share.

More than likely hybrids will stop being sold as "hybrids" and become something like ecoboost i.e. marketed as a normal engine option rather than a turbo.

Hybrids are the obvious way to maintain performance while keeping MPG inching upward.

Remember - just a few years back - when gas prices were over $4 a gallon. That was when Hybrids "made sense" because the increase in price for a Hybrid was actually matched by the savings on gasoline. The problem is that no one expected a GLUT of oil in the world - much less having the USA produce enough of its own oil to meet its needs. Without the US in the foreign buyers market - the suppliers cannot raise the prices because the Oil producing states NEED the money they lost in the loss of price.
However - this still ONLY looks at the price per mile of ownership - it still completely ignores just how poorly Hybrids perform on the road. However - I believe that the future will include Hybrids - as they are likely to become the obvious family choice when they will be able to have a range of about 150 miles on Battery - with the engine coming in only for long journeys.

@TomM this is not true: "the increase in price for a Hybrid was actually matched by the savings on gasoline". The break even point happens sooner at $4 a gallon.

The break even point on a hybrid is often around 35-50K miles i.e. you have to drive it that far to save enough to offset the higher initial cost. The higher the price of gas reduces that number, but no hybrid is an instant money saver.

I actually think the Volt has a far better solution than conventional hybrid or EV.

As for Tesla and their magical quick charging... Yes, you can quick charge your Tesla, but it cannot get a full charge. That still takes hours.

If a battery is constantly quick-charged it develops a "memory" and will--over time--not accept a full charge. Constant quick-charging and or slow charging a battery that is not depleted below 50% actually reduces battery life.

The beauty of a Volt is that you can deplete the battery and the engine will provide flow through electric production to keep you going until you can hook it up to a deep charge.

Hybrids and BEV's are and have always been a stepping stone to Hydrogen powered cars. Ask Toyota.

And the hydrogen infrastructure is at least 30-50 years away...

Did anyone actually read the article???? They compare a Rav4 AWD Hybrid to a Rav FWD for the purposes of the numbers. They compare a Prius V to a Corolla (although it has as much room as a Rav). 4 or 5 of the vehicles were within hundreds of dollars after 5 years...so at 6 years they would make sense. The quality of this "study" is pretty weak. Do hybrids make sense for "most" ? But they do make sense for many. Do you drive a lot and own your cars for more than 5 years? Mostly they do.