Very interesting comparative data on FCs versus batteries and FCEVs versus BEVs.

If the current high FC development rate keeps up, the next generation (by 2020 or so) will see major changes such as:

1) much lower FC cost of $40/KW
2) much lower H2 price of $4gge
3) much lower H2 storage cost of $10/kWh.

Future 100+ KW FCs will fit in the same place as current ICEs.

Good news for affordable near future FCEVs?

That was too harsh. I retract, and apologize, Harvey.

Restated: 100 H2 stations planned for 2020 leave little opportunity to hit the $4gge target. In a $2 gallon gasoline and $1gge elecrric world, the H2 transportation industry has a difficult road ahead.

Davemart, it is absolutely hilarious to see you try so hard to be nasty that you've taken to imitating the style of the US's most reviled politician.

Go ahead and keep referring to me as Jay. It only confirms how clueless you are with every post.

@ Jay or whatever his name is:

I'm not against affordable BEVs with their slow charge (30+ minutes), short good weather range (under 350 miles), if I could use my wife's HEV (1) for winter months and (2) for long trips and (3) have access to overnight charging facilities.

Those three (3) ifs are not always available nor acceptable. No. 3 is a flat NO for 5+ years to come, unless we change place for at least +$25K to +$50K for an equivalent unit.

May be one short range BEV + one HEV or FCEV versus our current HEVs would (eventually) be an acceptable compromise for a few days or until the BEV's batteries fall out of charge.

The real reality check is that a BEV would be unusable most of the time.

Another compromise would be an extended e-range PHEV running as an ICEV most of the time. At least, it would be usable?

For now, we will keep our excellent Toyota HEVs!

I understand a BEV is not for you, Harvey. And truly, if you ever do get H2 stations in your area and get that Mirai, many happy miles.

But when such an esteemed panel as referenced in the OP says the the Northeast US will have all of 15 stations and front-runner California has only 100 stations planned until 2020, we can probably safely conclude that the industry will not meet, let alone exceed, the "high volume" projected price of $5 to $7.50 gge. That $4 price is so distant it's a chimera, or maybe better said and more fittingly, a mirage. how do you look at those slides and come to any other conclusion? These are the experts building this stuff.

Anyway, all the best. Btw, my name is not Jay. Davemart just likes to shriek occasionally and he thinks that is some kind of insult.

Thanks to Greencarcongress for this excellent and detailed coverage of very encouraging advancements in FC and H2 techs.

Hopefully, all this techs will be just in the nick of time to keep GW to within 2 degree C.
This will happen when the Solar and Wind energy investors will able to sell ALL grid excess electricity for making high-value H2 for transportation, thereby encourage much faster investments into Solar and Wind energy.

The near-future Hydrogen economy when the bulk of the Hydrogen will be made from grid EXCESS Solar and Wind electricity now appears to be the most viable solution for keeping Global Warming to within 2 degree C, to ensure the survival of our species and our biosphere.

A lot is at stakes here, folks. All your supports are encouraged.

Every now and then the hydrogen folks make another run at trying to sell snake oil as medicine. The thing to remember is H2 is the oil company's answer to continuing control over the energy markets.
Watch the following, it's been around for awhile and is still useful to review in case your resolve thins from the propaganda:

http://insideevs.com/hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-compared-electric-cars-video/

What came first-the gasoline pump or the car? Gasoline was around since the first days of the petroleum industry, at first just a waste product. It turned out to be a perfect fuel of the first horseless carriages. The Electric Infrastructure was hardly existent at the turn of the century, most people still used kerosene lamps, and of course batteries were terrible (except to help the later for electric starters in automobiles).
Maybe Hydrogen will be like the early Twentieth Century Electric Industry. Missing the transportation sector but finding other uses, possibly for Distributed Electric Energy Storage (where even the waste heat can be used).
A good example could be the Toshiba H2One System, a Hydrogen Based Energy Supply System that is now providing renewable electricity all year long to a Kyushu Resort Hotel (http://toshiba-ttda.com/2016/03/14/toshiba-h2one-hydrogen-based-autonomous-energy-supply-system-now-providing-power-to-a-kyushu-resort-hotel/).

I simply do not get this. They keep predicting that some fundamental change is going to happen and suddenly H2 will be viable "in 5 years". Hey, at least they cut it down from the perpetual 10 years away.

But seriously, Tesla alone will have over 1,000 public fast charging stations by the end of 2016. Suddenly the Germans are waking up that they're in trouble for ignoring the Tesla threat and have a long list of PHEVs and BEVs coming out as well as GM with the Bolt and Honda is even admitting that they have a competitive EV/PHEV coming out on the Clarity platform.

Yet the H2 folks are once again trotting out best case scenarios comparing 2016 BEV tech to something they hope/pray will be here in 2020 and even then...we're talking about 100-150 H2 stations? A few thousand HFCVs against well over a million BEVs by that point?

This is a strange discussion.

What is the purpose? If you need the extended range, you can use a cheap PHEV today.

@Roger Pham
Syn-fuels are definitely an option, though I think the most efficient processes won't have an intermediate H stage. I don't think there's a real reason to convert syn-fuels into hydrogen before fueling a vehicle. Use advanced reactors/processors at the point of use.

Ammonia isn't that much more toxic than gasoline and is widely used on farms in the mid-West. I agree that it's unlikely to achieve retail acceptance as-is, but there are ammonia compounds that could be used. Ammonia dissociates relatively quickly in the environment.

Hydrogen volumetric density is incredibly low. Liquified hydrogen is 70kg/m^3, compared to LNG at 660kg/m^3. It's annoying to handle and store, requires heavy high-pressure or cryogenic tanks. Alternative storage remains fairly low density.

HT-PEM FC's are _slow_. Development of the FC was supposed to replace the ICE, not simply act as a range extender for an electric vehicle. This led to huge amounts of resources dumped into things like making FC's extremely responsive. The first available membranes were low-temperature only. That attitude seems to have been ingrained in FC development - the FC cabal at GM was against the Volt, for example (probably because it reduces engine use by 80%, making the choice of generator almost irrelevant). Now with the sunk costs in LT-PEM, who wants to repeat that work with HT-PEM's? I think the other piece of it is that hydrogen is, after all, the most 'green' fuel out there (disregarding well-to-wheels efficiency). Who wants to use yucky gasoline with their super-green-and-clean fuel cell?

I think what will happen in the end is that most cars will be BEV or EREV with very limited FC penetration (if any). SOFC fuel cells will be used for long-range heavy travel, reforming liquid fuels internally (LNG/CNG, synfuels, biodiesel).

Fuel cells are 5 years too late. By the time the first reasonable FC car is introduced (ignoring fueling concerns), everyone will know what a Tesla is. The idea of plugging in your car like a phone won't sound quite so crazy, and you'll already have Level 2 charging stations popping up everywhere like mushrooms. With the minimum cost of a hydrogen fueling station at $2 million and $20,000 for a Level 2 charging stations, there's no competition. This isn't about capacity, but about _visibility_.

Oh look, Ford is going to get into the 200+ mile BEV game too according to CEO Mark Fields during an investor call today where he said "they want to be among the leaders in that market".

Yet another big player getting into the game. How long till Toyota fesses up???

@David Freeman,
No matter how cheap automotive battery will get, BEV's and PHEV's will still not be in direct competition with FCEV's. Many people don't have access to charging receptacle where they park, while other people don't want to have to plug in daily.

FCEV's will grow rapidly in number when the oil companies are seeing that Plug-in EV's (PEV's) are taking away their business, forcing them to invest their $Trillion cash reserve into H2 fueling stations. The coming economic battle by the oil companies against the grow of PEV's will be exciting to see!

With low-cost FC and low-cost and widely available H2 coming in the next several years, we will see people choosing FCEV's over ICEV's (Engine Vehicles) for the cleanliness, comfort, and energy security that FCEV's can offer. Those people who can plug-in daily and don't mind doing so will continue to buy PEV's, but, by then, they will be a minority and not a majority.
FCEV's will offer convenient quick fill-up for over 300-mi range just like before, no need to change habit, so will become more popular than PEV's that require plug-in daily and longer wait time for "fast charging".

Why not liquid hydrocarbon (LHC), you say?
ZEV-mandate states are requiring growing numbers of Zero-Emission Vehicles, which will rule out combustion engine.
High-temp FC that can use LHC direct are too expensive and too bulky for mobile application.

Oil companies other than Shell have shown very little willingness to invest in hydrogen, for good reason (they are certainly in the best position to understand the costs and logistic implications).

It's a bit like comparing messaging by pneumatic tube (like we used to do at drive through banks) with modern Internet banking.

It's a competition between bits and atoms.