Thanks for asking. :o)

N-n-ope, not quite, but the trace of a suspicion of that possibility does always persist with anyone who is not knee-jerk attached to old assumptions. I think that the self-interest of car builders is not intricately wrapped up in petroleum production. Only interested, that liquid or?- energy be "adequate" and reasonably priced. More likely, it's the other way around, petroleum interests might dampen moves away from conventional petroleum into newer technologies.

I'd say that some of the such "devils" might just as likely be the ones sitting on the big oil deposits/pools, Russia and Middle East, etc. etc. etc. For the consumer, the "angel" is whoever offers the lowest price. That could be in another country, in a free trade setting, you realise?

"Big money" is not IMO, does not have to be, a consolidated unified block, and actually there are/should be lots of visionary investors who would grab and run with a really winning scientific breakthrough. Naturally, thinking outside the "box" is where the newest billionaires may arise. Is GM able to think and operate outside the "old" box, and will stockholders and unions, f'rinstance, let them? Time will tell.

In brief: Even "safe" assumptions can/should be reverified from time to time, and the background trend of rising petroleum prices tends to improve the competitive position of emerging energy technologies.

Happy thought, new backyard/close-to-home energy development/sources may drive prices down. The energy market IS huge. The sane/sober oil "plutocrats" themselves will have to diversify, even into alternate energy sources, if they are judged/prove to be inarguably superior investments on mere market forces alone.