' The fuel cell Hilux has an expected driving range of up to 600 km—further than might be achieved with a battery electric system. Meanwhile, due to hydrogen’s light weight, a higher payload and towing capability can be achieved compared to other zero-emission alternatives. '

These are simply superior to BEV in the application.
Loads of juice for towing, running power tools etc.

Davemart,

You quoted "The fuel cell Hilux has an expected driving range of up to 600 km—further than might be achieved with a battery electric system." The new Battery Electric GM (either GMC or Chevrolet) full size pickup, which is much more capable than a Toyota Hilux, has a range of 440 miles which is 704 km. However this is not a really fair comparison as the GM range is an EPA range while I assume the the Toyota rating is WLTP. So to get a fair comparison, you need to multiple the Toyota rating by about 0.8 or 0.82. Therefor, using 0.82, the real Toyota range is about 492 km or about 305 miles which is less than 75% of the range of the GM BEV. Of course, if Toyota used the NDEC rating, you would need to multiple their rating by 0.68 to 0.7.

Anyway, I do not know why anyone would want to use hydrogen for light duty vehicles, commercial or otherwise. Maybe for long haul heavy trucking but I doubt that it will be a good long term solution. Maybe for long haul aircraft but I expect that SAF will be the primary "clean" fuel for long haul aircraft. Just use the green hydrogen to replace the dirty hydrogen used for industrial purposes such as manufacturing ammonia and the planet will thank you.

I'd just note that although many here may think me a hydrogen advocate, I do NOT favour hydrogen for normal passenger vehicles, for exactly the reasons sd gives.

You only really need it for heavier, larger vehicles, which is exactly the opposite to what we should be encouraging for low carbon, ecological transport, and for instance in France they are starting to introduce higher taxation for heavier, bigger vehicles - and about time too, in my view.

Having said that, just as better batteries would change the equation of the most favourable choices, so would better packaging or hydrogen on board, for instance some of the plans of Stellantis, so that FCRE's for plug in vehicles become a better option.

At the moment, although some like yoatman may love their BEVs, here in Bristol UK I know several who have them, as they have to, because of local government criteria for work vehicles, and they universally hate them for their relative inflexibility and would never consider them if they were paying their own money for a car.
That is at a lower level than more luxurious electric offerings though, and no doubt BEVs will continue to improve.

I would much prefer a Plug-in FCV over a pure FCV or a pure BEV, because FC and H2 are a lot more expensive than grid electricity and battery. A Plug-in FCV would require a much smaller FC stack and would consume a lot less H2 during normal use. Should use H2 only when electricity is not available or not convenient.

@ECI,
Good point comparing the power between the Silverado EV 510 hp and Hilux FCV 180 hp (134 kW). If the Hilux is a Plug-in FCV with a 20-kWh battery pack capable of 10 C as in the BYD Seal 06 DM-i, and with a 75-kW fuel cell, it will have 275 kW of maximum power, which is DOUBLE the hp of the Hilux FCV version.

Hopefully, the Honda CRV-Plug-in FCV will give incentive for Toyota to develop its own PFCV version., which is what REALLY needed right now, and NOT the FCV non-plug-in version.

@Roger Brown,
Thank you for remembering. If need be, the motor winding could also be made from aluminum. But I think that if the Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) mandate would be no longer, then PHEV would be more practical. A small engine in the PHEV burning bio-methane or bio-methanol can be designed to be almost zero emission, as West Port has demonstrated with the NG-powered truck engines, turbocharged and running very lean, thus cool combustion to bring NOx to almost ZERO, with also practically zero particulates and zero CO and zero Non-Methane hydrocarbon emission.
Using bio-methane, the fuel tank in the Hilux would be 1//2 the size of the H2 tank, at well below 1/3 the pressure, 200-bar biomethane vs 700-bar H2, thus would cost 1/6 due to much less carbon fiber needed, and much less critical other high-pressure components.
Don't be the perfection be the enemy of the near-perfect. Let's be reasonable and scrub the ZEV mandate.

However, the research in making 700-bar H2 tank would make biomethane fuel a child's play and much more acceptable. The US has so much forestry and farm wastes that making biomethane to fuel the entire fleet of PHEV and semi-trucks would be no problem. No need for H2 in the USA, although in Europe and Asia, they may not have access to so much forestry and farm wastes, so they may still have to use H2 for transportation.

Just feeling some appreciation for this website and respect for the folks who post here.

Besides being lighter than Copper, Aluminum is also more abundant and cheaper than same. So why not coat Aluminum wire with graphene which would certainly increase conductivity and efficiency whilst reducing weight and perhaps cost. Another possibility could be an alloy comprised of aluminum and Graphene.
Anyone?