Still stratospheric.

I’ve asked for more details on each of the top 3.

Odograph,

While you do bring up some interesting points, I feel compelled to a reply as I feel there may be a few items you are not considering.

As I am a member of the Waterloo team, I am quite familiar with the design and the competition. First, as to your question on cost, good question, and my response is that they're fairly expensive at this point. What I would like to focus on though is that posting a number would be very misleading as you would be comparing a very mature combustion engine technology to a much younger fuel cell technology, that requires significant R&D costs. We are seeing fuel cells being cost competitive in other markets (eg. UPS), which will help develop the technology and reduce cost.

As far as the term 'unsubsidized', I would say that subsidies are both a good thing and are present in all fuels. It is responsible public policy to provide service to a nation via subsidies, especially when it deals with an item that is critical to the citizens. Second, when you consider the non-war miliatary cost of ensuring the safe transport of oil from the middle east, tax credits for oil exploration, and a number of other subsidies, gasoline is not without its subsidies. Biodiesel and ethanol are also, again as they should be, subsidized. All subsized, and justifiably so.

As for your reference to the predictions on feasibility, and in particular the reference to BMW. I am curious about your source, as BMW, like all other OEM's have invested significant resources into the hydrogen future. What makes BMW unique, is that one of their major efforts is focused on hydrogen combustion. And I would like to highlight that all the OEM's are investing significant amounts of money into hydrogen. If they didn't think it was feasible, why would they do this? 10 years is a long time, but so is the time required to shift to a different energy carrier.

As far as being impressed with the 2nd and 3rd place winners, so am I. All 16 other vehicle designs are very, very exciting and innovative and I am honoured to be part of a competition that houses such talented and dedicated teams. While we are "competing", we are all going after the same goal - to help us shift into a new era of sustainable mobility.

Ethanol, biodiesel, and reformulated gasoline are critical in achieving that shift. My personal view is that those fuels are essential in the near and mid terms, while hydrogen will be the long term solution.

And yes, costs are higher for all of these technologies, but the alternative is to do nothing and not be prepared for when gas prices rise to an unfeasible level. I am very excited that there a number of forward thinking companies and governments that are absorbing near term costs to ensure we all share a long term future.

Thanks for the vote of confidence Mike H. We'll continue to try our best to do our part.

As I wake up a little, I think I should just name my fear:

That people will keep driving big cars (and SUVs) because (they are told) they can switch to fuel cells in ten years (when they are "economical").

Heck, I saw a blog where some poor guy said something like "gas is getting to be $2/gal ... I'd wish those fuel cells would arrive." Like we have any idea at this point that (unsubsidized) fuel cells will beat $2/gal gas!

Anyway, you might have a different starting point north of the border, because AFAIK you don't have the whack'd wet of fuel economy standards (and SUV loopholes) we have down here in "the land of (depleted) oil."

Maybe my first response was just a little long. :)

For hydrogen highways, we need to test both the vehicle and the refueling technology. And these "highways" are the best way for this testing, eventhough it may/will supercede full scale commercialization.

More importantly, you and I both share the same fear. While hydrogen vehicle technology is rapidly advancing, there still remains more work. The general approach that many people on our continent (both sides of the border) have taken that energy will always be cheap and readily available is reason for concern. Hydrogen is an energy carrier and still requires an energy source. While some of those sources are renewable, natural gas is among those that will be depleted first. Regardless of fuel, we need to start being more aware of our energy use.

The idea that people shouldn't rely on a hydrogen future to allow us to waste energy today is a great point. I hope more people take that to heart.

Cheers.

Congractulations on all teams participating int this competition, though its less of a competition as they all have similar goals, only the idea of a top spot motivates people.

I am really all for R&D into new technology, but its shocking how little or ill informed the public is on the topic of Hydrogen economy. Media and politicians throw the term around around too often making it act like a pacifier for all the bad fuel habbits.

What is really needed is a paradigm shift in the way the american society behaves. And environmental conciousness should be taught right from kindagaten so students could take what they learn in class to the outside world.

Regarding the ChallengeX GM should have iniciated something more realistic. I don't see the idea of reengineering an already inefficient piece of automobile as a solution, but as a familiarity experience for the participants. Why did they not use a malibu or chevy aveo. The SUV craziness is already too much.

All this research money could have been used for battery development programs and competitions which would yield more fruitful results. Battery electric vehicles are much closer than the much tauted fuelcells and the best part is the infrastructure already exist. No need for expensive hydrogen highway or storage tanks.

what this country needs is a massive.. hoover dam, apollo space program, manhatten project like endevour to bring in the hydrogen/fusion age. If i were president i'd have declaired my intent of making fossil fuels obsolete in ten years instead of landing people on mars. I have little doubt it could be done excepting the power the fossil fuel industry holds over this countrys politicians. Little money.. mabye a lot.. up front to free us in the future. sooner we start reaping dividends the better. but no.. looks like mars is the best/least offensive "goal" this country can permit.