The Mirai rivals the beauty of the Pontiac Aztek.

Wow, that's a very decent range.
Many thought it would only get about the same as the Tesla.

With their 5kg tank that is 62.4miles gge.
Even after reforming and compression losses that is tremendously economical.

Next year's Honda is supposed to be around 100 km more than the Mirai on the tolerant Japanese cycle, so will be the range champ.

Toyota Mirai
The fuel economy for my Ford Focus Econetic Estate is 3.4 l/100 km. This equals 69 mpg, albeit in "diesel equivalent" numbers. The corresponding level in gasoline equivalent numbers is 62 mpge. Levels for corresponding cars, such as VW Golf and Peugeot 308, are 71/64 and 74/66 mpgd/mpge. (One should consider that EU and US test cycles are different but to get a broad picture a direct comparison would do.) It is nice to see that a Toyota FCV can match diesel efficiency. On a well-to-wheel basis, an FCV is of course much “worse” than diesel fuel due to higher energy use in hydrogen production, distribution and re-fuelling. That is if we consider the main resource for hydrogen production, which currently is natural gas. Hydrogen produced from renewable sources could also be used for an FCV or in the production of diesel fuel (in fact, hydrogen is used in refineries for cracking and to remove sulphur in diesel fuel). I have not made a matching calculation on the efficiency in such cases but it could be an interesting comparison. Currently, renewable hydrogen is far too expensive to be considered in refineries, which most likely is also the case for hydrogen in FCVs. I suppose that even current (fossil) hydrogen cost is somewhat prohibitive.

Peter said:

'Currently, renewable hydrogen is far too expensive to be considered in refineries, which most likely is also the case for hydrogen in FCVs'

Hydrogen for transport is mandated to come from a third renewables in California, and there are ample supplies of landfill, sewage etc to enable that for many, many years before having to think about electrolysis and so on.

So currently wasted resources will be put to use.

Since it would not need transporting far and the technology of breaking down plant fibre is rapidly improving local biomass could fuel hydrogen stations throughout rural America, and also further refined to other fuels hopefully replace the vast amounts of oil agriculture uses for machinery etc with locally produced processed resources.

Biomass etc is rapidly closing in on the DOE's target of $4kg, although how competitive that is with NG at any given time depends on the swings in price of that commodity.

Most renewables and BEV cars themselves would hardly exist if it were not for mandates and subsidies, so there is nothing new there.

CO2 levels for reforming natural gas to hydrogen are normally calculated assuming NG also provides the process heat.

There are excellent opportunities in stations in many areas of the US to instead use solar thermal, as since the hydrogen is stored anyway it could be produced during the day for use 24/7.

Solar thermal since it does not need to change to electricity and back is of course much, much more efficient than pv solar.

As for Europe, the economics of renewable hydrogen from electrolysis of surplus wind and solar, notably in Germany, are totally different there due to the far higher price of natural gas:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1RknvSlILKDLh--TXt-5MaTGcy2wUoN7QQgDRxf6ik2U/edit?pli=1#gid=0

See tab: 'Renewable hydrogen'

The Germans who have a nationwide network of 900 NG stations and so have considerable experience of providing alternative fuelling infrastructure put the cost of individual hydrogen stations and the total infrastructure cost at similar levels to natural gas.

Many of those now moaning simultaneously about the inadequacy of the hydrogen infrastructure and the 'impossibility' of expanding it to adequate coverage previously predicted that the dozens already under construction would never be built, so with a track record like that perhaps they should quit whilst they are behind.

As for the bitching about the cost of subsidy for hydrogen stations:

'- PG&E on Monday proposed a $654 million program to build a large network of electric vehicle charging stations in northern and central California to make headway against the state's green energy goals, but utility customers would have to pay for it.

The utility proposed the plan to build 25,000 electric-vehicle chargers in its service territory as part of a filing with the state Public Utilities Commission. The state currently has only about 6,000 charging stations.'

http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_27493623/pg-e-floats-654-million-plan-increase-electricity

That's enough to top up the funds to create a heck of a lot of hydrogen stations, and way more than any current proposed level of subsidy for them.

To be clear I agree with providing subsidy for BEV charging points, but the whole of the BEV industry would not exist in any substantial form without subsidy.

What democracy is all about is putting up with measures you don't agree with as well as those you do.

We are left then with the proposition that random usually wholly unqualified in relevant disciplines bloggers know more than the DOE, than all the big car companies and all of their engineers, and on the back of their envelopes have infallibly worked out why fuel cells are not worth pursuing.

Of course, there is always the 'oil company conspiracy' idea to fall back on, so that the likes of Toyota who brought us the vehicle of choice or redneck hooners, the Prius, and who have zero financial stake in oil, have mysteriously been taken over by mind control from the oil companies so that they are spending billions on a technology they really know won't work.

If the oil company's mind control is that good, then resistance is pointless.

To be plain I have no idea whether BEVs or fuel cell cars will dominate, although the vast majority of motorists in the world without convenient access to a plug might have a preference.

I don't know, and I think those who fancy they have all the answers are deluded, and have an inflated sense of their powers.

@Peter:

My long post seems to have reappeared!

I don't mean that personally to you, as your post talking about the cost of hydrogen was just the starting point for what I wished to say, so only the bits directly answering that are addressed to you.

@Harvey:

Where they are not subsidised away from home chargers charge one heck of a lot for a few kilowatthours of power, and most at the prices they charge won't want to charge more than they have to.

Of course, there is the Tesla model, which supposedly charges including in the price of the car.
Aside from the fact that it is a bit difficult to allocate profits when the company is running at an ongoing loss, and that the monies paid in are in no way ring fenced or AFAIK a written contract offered guaranteeing how many chargers will be in the network, access to them, or anything else, that model is tough to do for cheaper cars at the sharp end of the market.

A PHEV FCEV as Audi have shown could simply charge at home when convenient, and at more or less conventional filling stations away from home.

Most estimates put the cost of infrastructure for BEVs and fuel cell cars at similar levels, and in any case small compared to the cost of the cars.

Fuel cell cars need fewer but more expensive equipment.

ECI:

I thought you had a blog to run given over to immoderate and wholly unconsidered boosterism of Tesla.

It is surprising that you find the time to troll other sites and threads whenever hydrogen or fuel cells are mentioned, surprising and ill-mannered.

BTW, you have never mentioned whether you or your staff hold a financial interest in Tesla, but promote it on every occasion.

No doubt you will wish to clarify the matter, or not since you never give a straight answer.

It's a print magazine in national distribution on North America's largest newsstands actually, Davemart, but you already knew that. Don't miss any opportunity to take a personal dig, it's good sport, right?

No financial interest in Tesla other than owning a Model S, which is every bit as delightful to drive as anyone who owns one says it is.

I have noticed how infrequently you address the actual topic at hand, preferring personal attacks. It's tiresome, old man. Not that you'll be inclined to stop on my say so but do give it some thought. It just ruins your credibility, mate.