'The cost of a hydrogen-fueled 80-kWe fuel cell power system projected to high volume production (500,000 units/year) has been estimated to be $51/kW (assuming 2010 technology), as shown in Figure 2.2 Cost reduction was a result of simplified architecture and reduction in stack component costs through ongoing R&D efforts. The cost of the fuel cell stack has been estimated to be $25/kW (assuming 2010 technology).'

http://hydrogendoedev.nrel.gov/pdfs/progress10/i_introduction.pdf

This is a DOE projection, and the critical words here is that it is not based on any new advance in technology, but simply on going to mass production with existing technology.
That means that instead of a guess based on dubious assumptions, this is a normal cost and works accounting exercise, the sort of thing that any CEO might give his cost department and not expect them to be too far out.

And:
'Electrolysis: Giner Electrochemical Systems reduced hydrogen embrittlement in titanium/carbon cell-separators, demonstrated enhanced dimensionally stable membrane (DSMTM) performance, and projected a decrease in overall capital cost of their electrolyzer stack from >$2,500/kW in 2001 to $463/kW in 2010. In addition, NREL completed an independent review of wind electrolysis, estimating the levelized cost range for state-of-the-art electrolysis to be $4.90–$5.70 per gallon gasoline equivalent (gge) of hydrogen for forecourt refueling stations (including compression, storage and dispensing), and $2.70–3.50/gge for central electrolysis operations (at the plant gate, excluding all delivery and dispensing costs).'

Put that together with the consumption figures given for the Hyundai with a gallon of petrol around equal to 1kg of hydrogen and clearly you have the makings of a viable transport system.

As for hydrogen delivery, the same pipes which take natural gas gas have an admixture of up to 12% hydrogen, to be separated at the garage, as they are going to do in Hawaii:
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2010/05/tgc-20100511.html#more

So 72 miles per kg H2, or 1.2 miles per kWh primary electricity if making the H2 by electrolysis.

BEVs use about 3-4x less electricity per mile.

PHEVs with ICE or Hydrogen range extender and small batteries...or...BEVs with large batteries may co-exist. The hydrogen approach may be the best solutions for large long haul trucks, buses, locomotives and similar large vehicles. BEVs with more efficient high capacity batteries may be the best solution for cars and light trucks.

@Davemart

1] Seeing as how clett proposed using electricity to make the H2 by electrolysis any inefficiency in the grid should, in this case, be added to the inefficiency of the FCHV, not used to exalt it.

2] A grid efficiency of 35%? Where did you get that? How far upsream did you have to go, the power planet? If you're going to go that far let's put the FCHV up to the same measure and do a well-to-wheels comparison?

3] We're talking about cars here. Can you use the heat of the FC to make the car go farther? How much "efficiency gains on heating" is realistic?

clett: Where do you have e-power grids at 35% efficiency. Ours runs at an average of 93% efficiency. Of course, long distances use 765 KV lines and even local distribution lines are using higher voltages then before.

One problem remains, i.e. our 115/230 VAC in house systems. Fortunately, we use 230 VAC for all high consumption units such as heating and air conditioning, cooking stoves, water heaters etc. PHEVs and BEVs should be restricted to 230 VAC domestic chargers to reduce losses.

EU's 220/380 VAC systems are more efficient.

Has the price per vehicle dippped to below $500,000 US dollars yet? And we still worry if the Leaf and Volt are overpriced.

Has the price per vehiucle dipped below $500,000 USD yet?

And maybe cleaner too;
http://money.cnn.com/2011/02/15/autos/aceee_volt_green/index.htm?hpt=C2

Davemart, You keep mentioning 35% efficiency and then talking about transmission losses in the same sentence.

Transmission losses are only about 7% on average so I assume you're talking about a worst case scenario? For example, running an old, very inefficient coal fired plant and then including the transmission losses as well?

Just trying to understand what you are comparing to.

If you run a range of numbers for best case / worst case comparing EV, FC and hybrids you get roughly the following ranges

EV
Best Case - CCGT (60%), minimal transmission losses (95), charging losses, (95) ~50%
Worst Case - OCGT, and higher charging, transmission losses ~30%

ICE
Best case - Diesel / hybrid ~ 40%
Worst case - Petrol - 4WD ~ 15%

H2FC
Best case - Efficient reforming, low compression losses, efficienct fuel cell ~40%
Worst case - Electrolyis (CCGT) compression etc ~20%