The authors have apparently never spent any time with BEVs, and focused on the traditional "numbers," apparently without any thought given to the bigger, more relevant picture.

The usual "range" criticism is presented, without comment on how much range is actually needed by the vast majority of Americans (average daily miles = 29, and 80% drive less than 40 miles per day). More is not necessarily better, because "more" means more upfront cost, and more weight.

Time to refuel? Typical argument made by petrolheads against BEVs. But since "refueling" a BEV typically takes place at the owner's home, overnight, what is the relevance. And refueling time for an ICE car is claimed to be 5 minutes — that would be five minutes after you are parked next to the pump. No mention of the 30-minute round-trip detour to drive to the gas station.

Efficiency of BEVs is given in the archaic mile-per-gallon "e". There are no "gallons" with BEVs. The authors need to present BEV efficiency in terms that BEV drivers actually use.

Their category "Availability of qualified mechanics" is a joke, and proves the authors are stuck in the world of ICE. Electric vehicles do not have the inherent maintenance needs of ICE vehicles. BEVs also can be updated with over-the-air software enhancements.

And nowhere do the authors discuss the much better driving experience that BEVs bestow on their owners—a huge advantage over ICE vehicles, and perhaps the most importance distinction. Magnetic braking? Single-pedal speed control?

The report seems obvious.

A fair; albeit, brief assessment. The battery is the issue for BEVs and is reflected in the limited range, heavy weight and high cost of the current state of the automotive art. And, BTW, Quick charging is only an issue. in most cases, in long distance travel.

These will be "No Issues." as the battery technology advances. Many believe without interference from the fossil fuels industry and their political hitmen, mostly Republican Congressmen and Governors, BEVs will dominate the roads by 2030. And, as an aside; electric power for commercial buildings and homes will be dominated by renewables and storage batteries at tht time.

I would like to second (or third) what ChrisL wrote, and add something else. I'm willing to bet that the "average" for BEVs was taken over the model range (13 vehicle models available). I wonder what the average would be if taken over the fleet, weighed by numbers of each model sold. And does that "13 vehicle models available" include PHEVs?

It appears the study uses $5.40 kg as the cost of hydrogen, far lower than the $13.50-$16.50 currently charged at stations in California.

If we generously use the lower of those two numbers, the actual cost per mile for FCVs is $0.225. Over two times the cost of gasoline.

Hybrid automobiles have been demonstrated to use half the fuel of identical automobiles in city driving.

Most drivers are unconscious of the fuel being used whilst stopped, the fuel wasted in stopping and the fuel wasted in acceleration as well as the fuel wasted at high speed compared to low speed for the same distance; or they would know that hybrid automobiles can reduce fuel use greatly. Artemis Intelligent Power(now MHI) proved this in a standard vehicle that was tested and then converted to a hydraulic hybrid with their pump, motors and pressure accumulators which in production would cost far less than an electric hybrid and would weigh less and save more fuel. Artemis is cooperating with Ricardo in testing flywheel energy storage for more regeneration. Such hybrids could be modified with more efficient engines for even greater fuel savings.

Turbines have lower efficiency than piston engines but clean exhausts even with diesel, and there is no reason not to use them in most automobiles because the extra cost is low because of relatively low fuel use of private automobiles and the greatly increased efficiency of hydraulic hybrids.

Fuel cells fed with hydrogen are very expensive per kilowatt and must be supplemented with heavy batteries. The heavy batteries alone could handle average trips, and all electric automobiles should be fitted with a rescue generator that could use any fuel for even hundreds of miles because it is seldom used. The rescue generator should be built to operate on most automotive fuels including pure ethanol and methanol. Bladon turbines could be tiny but are too expensive for the limited use. Driving an average of 15 miles per hour should not take more than a kilowatt in most automobiles. Drivers who commute long distances every day should not have an electric vehicle except for local use because hydraulic hybrids reduce carbon release to one half with optimization.

One airline is considering electric wheel motors to make their planes into hydrogen hybrids to get to the take off point and save fuel with hydrogen fuel cells. The Russians tested a hydrogen fueled jet aircraft. Most passenger aircraft have an auxiliary power unit that could run the electric wheel motors. Jet fuel is quite cheap and can even be made cheaper from coal and the amount used to taxi is insufficient to justify hydrogen fuel cells compared to the amount used for take off. Water injection on takeoff as in the 707 would save lots of fuel compared to taxi fuel.

Hydraulic motors would make lighter weight aircraft taxi wheels and could assist far better than electric for braking. Much heat could be rejected away from the wheels. The speed could be synchronized to ground speed before touchdown for less tyre wear. ..HG..

Posters promoting their 'pet' technology often exaggerate cost of competing technologies.

Extended range (350+ miles) FCVEs cost LESS (up to -50%) not MORE than equivalent extended range (350+ miles) BEVs.

Clean H2 inherently cost about +25% more than clean electricity for extended range ultra quick charge BEVs.

The lower FCEVs initial purchase cost will offset most of the higher operation cost, leaving quicker refills, better range and free cabin heat as worthwhile conveniences.

Harvey> Extended range (350+ miles) FCVEs cost LESS

Sure Harvey. Spec out an EV which does not exist and you can attach any price you'd like to it.

Toyota Mirai costs $57,500.
Chevrolet Bolt will cost $37,500

H2 costs ~ $13.50 pr kg, $16.50 some places
About $0.22 per mile
Electriciti costs $0.12 per kWh
About $0.04 per mile

Hydrogen is at least 5.5x more expensive than electric to operate.

Pretend all you'd like that H2 is less expensive. But when real people go to buy these things in the real world and have to pay the bill, the reality will be much different.

Harvey, you can't compare a nonexistant H2 infrastructure to a widespread electric charge network with 40,000 nodes.

The unfortunate reality is that if you had an FCV, you'd be going nowhere because there is absolutely nowhere to fuel up near where you live

Even here in Southern California - the epicenter of H2 infrastructure with all of 8 functioning stations - Toyota has pulled the Mirai off sale becuase that isn't good enough for real customers buying real cars to get to real jobs.

So sure, speculate all you'd like about what the future will be like. Your guess is as good as any.

But to anyone who's looking at the scoreboard in the real world, BEVs and PHEVs are winning 2,000 to 1. There's a reason for that.

The cabin heat is not free. The heat is a byproduct of the inefficiency of the system. When you don't need the heat, it's still there, and you still pay for it.

Even if the FCV were eventually cheaper than an electric, consumers will more than pay the difference in operating costs as I pointed out above.

With a hydrogen infrastructure that is estimated by the DOE to cost $500 billion to $1 trillion in the US alone, there will definitely be no free lunch for FCV drivers.

It would also be worthwhile for USA to spend another $500B to $1000B to accelerate installation of more REs and introduction of autonomous drive e-vehicles.

@ e-c-i-c:

Do you remember when we switched from CRT TVs to flat thin TVs? Most of us paid 3 to 5 times more for the first few years. However, for the last 3+ years, large flat TVs cost a lot less than equivalent size CRTs of 20 years ago, even in current dollars, the differential would be higher in 1995 dollars.

Similar price changes may happen for FCEVs and H2 stations and H2 price over the next 10 - 20 years or so. One Kg of clean H2 may cost less than one gal of gas in 2035/2040 or so. The $336B for an H2 station network in USA is rather cheap. It could cost less if combined with quick e-charging facilities and/or if progressively replace existing gas stations.

Fixing the mess we created (or trying to fix) in Libya, Irak, Syria, Afghanistan, etc will cost at least 10X that, if not much more.

Let us progressively build very quick e-charging facilities with combined H2 stations network starting in early 2016. A joint effort by utilities, H2 distributors, vehicle manufacturers, local, state and federal authorities could finance a few hundred stations every year for the next 10 to 20+ years.

Other countries would follow and the world would quickly become a better place to live.