This will be one expensive vehicle! Add to that the expense of setting up the infrastructure for hydrogen production, distribution and dispensing (H2 @ 700 atmospheres, chilled) and you've got to wonder if a PHEV/BEV wouldn't be a much better way to go. It seems this hydrogen juggernaut is to be forced down our gullets whether we want it or not.

Rafael,
For transporting hydrogen over long distances, do you think it would be better (cheaper) to transport ammonia ?
Once the ammonia is on its destination point it can be separated into hydrogen and nitrogen.
I do not know how much energy is needed for separation of ammonia.

Can the higher efficiency and more simple BEV beat out the big money of H2? Not without some quick help from PHEVs I think. Without more public education they will cram H2 down our gullets. I suppose it won't be too bad if the H2 goes the PHEV route and I only need to tank up on H2 for long drives.

I don't think anyone needs to worry about FCV's getting crammed down our throats. Non-prescious metal FC stacks only have about a tenth of the power output of platinum based FC stacks, and there's only enough platinum production in the world for a million or two FCV's per year at the absolute best. Even that level would jack the price of platinum way up, further reducing the financial viability of FCV's. Considering worldwide automobile production is over 50 million units or so, it's unlikely fuel cells will ever catch on as mainstream due to the finite production of platinum.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_roads/documents/pdf/dft_roads_pdf_024056.pdf

This report is out of date but gives you a ball park number of platinum. At the time of this report a car fuel cell has about 2oz of platinum. That number has been declining. The goal is to get that amount down to .2 (Other reports I've seen list the more likely amount as .4 In contrast I believe that autocatalysts use .05oz of platinum and .15oz of palladium.

Nickel may have the potential to replace some (maybe all) of the platinum.

Jorge -

ammonia becomes toxic at roughly the same concentration at which it induces nausea. I suspect few customers would accept it as a fuel.

SJC -

afaik, present PEM technology requires about 10x the platinum per vehicle as three-way-catalysts do. That's why Sid's estimate of a two-million limit on FCVs due to limited platinum availability strikes me as too low.

Fredrik -

energetically, the whole point of fuel cells is that you avoid thermodynamic cycle processes altogether. As you know, the fundamentally upper bound for those is the Carnot efficiency defined by the highest and lowest absolute temperatures reached in the cycle. I'm therefore curious where you got your 50% number from.

But as you rightly point out, even if a practical fuel cell were substantially more efficient than a diesel, the overheads of hydrogen production and distribution pretty much eliminate any gains made. This is especially pertinent if the hydrogen is produced from natural gas via steam reformation. Proponents argue that this is irrelevant if the production is based on nuclear power or renewable energy. I beg to differ, both wrt basic physics and wrt economics/environmental impact.

IMAO, hydrogen is simply not an appropriate fuel for ground-based vehicles. There are obvious applications in rocketry and perhaps also some in aviation.

Let's see, if they can reduce platium required for PEM fuel cells 10 to 1, then the platinum they use for cat converters can go to fuel cells. Or, just use SOFCs and use the precious metal for something else.

Perhaps you should look at ITM Power in England
This outfit have eliminated precious metals from electrlysers and got the cost/Kw down to around 5% (yes five percent) of the best in class today.....They presented to Wall St in Feb2007 and stated they were confident they could repeat these improvements on fuel cells which are the mirror image of electrlysers This means that the $50/Kw auto fc is just around the corner