BEV only advocates have long claimed that hydrogen is the preferred choice of the oil industry.

To the extent that that is the case, then the funds will clearly be available to build out the infrastructure, which they have long argued to be impossible of accomplishment.

They can't have both sides of the argument, although they sure have tried.

The oil industry is not all powerful however, and there are just too many sources of renewable hydrogen rapidly approaching economic viability especially in Europe and the Far East where natural gas prices are far higher than in the US for a hydrogen economy to be fossil fuels by another name.

So all the 'infallible' predictions of the BEV only folk are showing holes, from infrastructure build to the production of cars, which some of them said would 'never' reduce from the early prototype stage of around $200,000

As recently as last week, electric car insider was on about the $50,000 cost of the Mirai, either the stack or the car, I forget which, as though that were impossible of decrease.

Well, Toyota say that they can reduce costs by 80% by 2020.

Believe the prophets who have got everything about hydrogen so far wrong if you like, but their record of failure in prediction is conclusive:

1. They said the hydrogen infrastructure would never be built.

It is.

2. They said it would be impossibly expensive.

A 400 million Euro subsidy for the first 400 stations is impossible?

3. They said the cars would never be built.

They are.

4. They said the cars would always be impossibly expensive.

Costs are dropping way, way faster than for battery cars.

5. They said that hydrogen from renewables would always be impossibly expensive.

Ditto above, for costs of this, and umpteen new exciting technologies like hydrogen from solar are making astonishing progress.

With their track record you would think they would give up, but they will simply forget that they have been wrong on every count so far, and pontificate afresh.

Yes Davemart...BEVs only advocates may have to have a second thought (very soon) about mobiles and fixed FCs superiority unless 5 - 5 - 5 batteries become a reality by 2020 or so. Which is rather doubtful at the current development rate?

Even so, the family FCEV, with a fixed tank or trucked in or piped in H2 supply would make a very useful emergency e-supply for extended power failures. Could be ideal campers too.

It may be decades before batteries can catch up?

The FAA has just come out with a ruling to airline passengers not to pack extra Lithium Ion batteries in their check in luggage. One airline has pulled every credit card reader using Lithium Ion batteries from all flights due to a fire in the cabin which required an emergency landing.

I avoid these potential bombs like the devil holy water.

Mannstien: don't bring explosion/fire concerns in here... everything about a car can be dangerous... I don't want to start a war between those still grief stricken by the Hindenburg and the garage fire guys. They are as safe as we choose to make them,
Speed is more of a concern: its not how fast you're going, but how fast you come to a stop.

Dear Mr Reasonable,(aka TLJ)

Our most promising energy sources to avoid CO2 emission are Solar and Wind energies (S&W). However, these are non-dispatchable and intermittent, hence cannot be relied on, nor depended on to match our demand pattern.

If we are to depend on 100% Renewable Energy for the power grid, we will have to overbuild S&W massively in order to have enough S&W power even in low-wind and low-sun days. Then, in windy and sunny days, we will have too much S&W surplus that will fetch no money for S&W investors, and S&W investment will stall well short of 100% grid coverage with S&W, and we will forever be dependent on fossil fuel.

However, if there is a high-value Hydrogen market that will make grid-excess S&W profitable to S&W investors, then investment into S&W will continue even when the grid will be over 100% saturated with S&W. This is because the grid-excess S&W can be used to make H2 profitably as high-value transportation fuel that can be cost-competitive with petroleum, and bring back worthwhile profit for S&W investors.

Notice no carbon tax, nor any other special incentives to achieve the above economically-sustainable growth of Solar and Wind energies for the grid and for ground transportation, to eventually displacing nearly all fossil fuel.

It really is simple. The fate of batteries to be relegated to urban or regional runabouts is tied to this simple fact. They use too much material to store a given quantity of energy. Fluid fuels do not suffer such a situation, H2 included.

@TLJ:

FCEVs are interesting for our very cold snowy weather area. We're often delayed for hours in heavy snow falls and old weather. Current BEVs have major difficulties to deal with those conditions and keep passengers warm at the same time.

Consequently, the majority of the 8,000+ BEVs in our region are not used during cold snowy months. Most of the EVs in operation (in our region) are currently called mild weather days, short distance vehicles, definitely not full time family vehicles.

Up-to-date FCEVs could handle our harsh weather conditions better, if and when we have enough H2 stations. Our huge Hydro e-energy surpluses (specially during off peak periods) could be used to produce low cost very clean H2. With 500+ Km FCE range, a thin H2 station network along major highways would not cost that much.