Audi/VW have beautiful engine compartments, they take pride in the layout and appearance. IMO fuel cells will always be a bit expensive, they got the platinum content down, but you still have hundreds of cells and each cell costs.

These are nice announcements, Audi/VW have not said much up until now, they have maintained a low profile but kept working in the engineering labs. Good for them, they knew 2015 was going to be show time and they got there.

Cost per mile to drive.

That's the critical thing here. If FCEVs can't be operated for considerably less than ICEVs while costing more how are economies of scale reached?

There may be some advocates willing to pay a premium to both purchase and operate a FCEV. But are there the 100,000 to 500,000 numbers it takes to create real price drops?

Then, assuming there's some way other than large scale manufacturing to bring purchase price down to ICEV level, why would someone purchase a car that costs more per mile to operate than another option?

(Don't look to "greenies". H2 from reformatted NG isn't green.)

Let's set advocacy aside.

Work the numbers for FCEVs with their H2 from reformed methane.

(That will help with nitrous oxide but not with CO2 emissions. The H2 really needs to come from renewable electricity but that would be more expensive.)

Work the numbers for EVs charged with renewable electricity.

Advocates may buy a few EVs or FCEVs simply because they are advocates, but the vast majority of the market is going to respond to cost.

As I read this article

http://ecomento.com/2014/08/13/bullish-toyota-admits-hydrogen-wont-be-cheap/#comment-236548

Toyota is saying that at first it will cost 17 cents per mile to drive a FCEV. (300 miles for $50.) And that cost may eventually drop to 19 cents per mile. (300 miles for $30.)

Toyota also says in that article that it will cost 3 cents per mile to drive an EV. (300 miles for $9.60.)

And to add a bit of perspective, driving a 50 MPG ICEV on average priced $3.50 per gallon gas costs 7 cents per mile.

3 - 7 - 10 - 17. Which do you think most people would choose?

@Bob:

Fuel costs are a small part of the cost of ownership of a new car, with depreciation the overwhelming factor.

It is people who buy new who count in the market.

The notions of saving huge amounts on fuel costs are also based at least on Europe on eternal exemption from the costs of motor vehicle tax.

One way or another, as soon as there are substantial numbers on the road, that will be clawed back.

So in the UK at the average of ~10k miles a year, mpg of 8 miles a litre, and fuel at £1.20 with 60% of that tax, then 1250 litres cost £1,500 of which £900 is tax and £600 fuel.

Electricity costs ~£0.15kwh, so at 4 miles kwh at the wall that is £375

Saving for the year with equal taxation £225.

People are not going to fool around driving to charging points if they can't charge at home for that sort of money.

However the economics is worse than that.
If the batteries add £5000 to the cost of the car, then depreciation on them might come to £500 pa, so the electric car loses money.

I fully support the electrification of transport, but it won't save the individual lots of money, it is the subsidies doing that.

People are not going to accept more inconvenient solutions to save a couple of hundred a year.

@lad:

Reforming natural gas and using it in a fuel cell or generating electricity to power a BEV takes around the same amount of gas.

So it would seem that the gas industry is unlikely to be bothered either way.

Of course large amounts of coal is used to generate electricity so they presumably should be heavily in favour of battery electric cars, as it is not used for hydrogen production at all.

Both electricity and hydrogen can be made using non-fossil fuel resources, and both are, with California for instance mandating one third of transport hydrogen to come from renewables.

Future Solar to H2 converters will produce lower cost clean H2 in huge quantities for automotive and fixed FCs.

Posters worry too much about the current higher cost of H2. Clean H2 may very well become competitive or cheaper than gasoline or ethanol in about 10 to 15 years from today.

Using unlimited solar energy to produce all the clean H2 required for fixed and automotive FCs is the proper thing to do to get off Coal, Oil, Bio-fuels and NG.

@EP said:
'Something like a Tesla is going to have value for a long time'

I think you may have picked a bad example for a BEV, judging by the failure rate in drive train units.

Would you buy a car with that failure rate if it was off guarantee?

Why do you think that FCEVs will have high failure rates, when the technology is more developed, as durability does still need improving?

They are far more reliable than diesels for emergency power supplies.

I checked resale prices for 2011 Nissan Leafs and Toyota Camrys. About the same based on mileage.

Fuel savings for a 13,000 mile driver is about $1,200 a year. ($3.50 gas and 12 cent electricity.) Add some more in for oil changes and higher maintenance costs for the Camry.

The MSRP for the Leaf is ~29,010 and $21,510 after federal subsidy. The MSRP for the Camry is $22,970.

The Camry is a bit larger, but if you're someone who is considering a Leaf then you're probably talking a commute and errand car, not a long trip car for the family. And I would expect the driving experience of the Leaf somewhat better.

All that seam unfortunately very costly. The main hope remain in a discovery to produce hydrogen from water at low cost. If the hydrogen remain pricy and the fuelcell car remain pricy than where are we going with that. I tell you, the future of an energy renaissance remain on a discovery to produce plenty of hydrogen at low cost from water. If not than my goddam ice car will cost more and more to fuel and pollution will rise and someday we gonna hit a barrier where there is no more petrol to use and my car which is a bland economy car will lose all of his value and will be worth the price of the metal and it will amount to 1 dollar and foods and gas will cost 500$ for a meal and 500% for a gallon of gas.

@gor,
If you're concerned about reducing fuel consumption and help save the environment within a limited budget, what you can do now is trade in your Neon for a Prius 2004-2009. You will pay just a few thousands $ more, perhaps $4,000-5,000 more, instead of $20-25,000 USD more for the Leaf, or $30,000 more for PHEV's like the Volt, but you will get a much more reliable car in the Prius vs the Neon. I heard that you've gotten quite a few problem with the Neon, even though it got few miles than my Prius.

My Prius got well over 100,000 miles without any repair nor any dealer service whatsoever, just oil changes, filter changes, and tire change. Not a single glitch. Rock-solid reliability. The interior and the paint are almost new. The battery will last for another 100,000 miles because it still hold charges very well.

Your mpg will jump from 25 from the Neon to about 50 mpg for the Prius. Do not think negatively. You can drive the Prius for another 100,00--150,000 miles for another ten years, saving a lot of fuels and helping the environment greatly, then you will be ready to own a used PHEV or even a used FCEV at much more affordable cost.

@RP:

That's almost what we did with our 3 new Toyota HEVs (2 Camrys and one Prius). So far, they have been 100% trouble free. Of course they consume a bit more with winter tires in cold weather and snow but we average close to the advertised for the rest of the year..

We have been using Toyotas for many years and have always been satisfied. Quality cars.