Honda Confident Fuel Cell Vehicles Will Go Mainstream: No Timeline

AUG 3 2018 BY MARK KANE 99

Honda believes that hydrogen fuel cell powered cars will go mainstream, just be patient though.

So far, sales of FCVs didn’t take off as Honda delivered only some 1,010 Clarity Fuel Cell in the first 19-months (through the end of June 2018), compared to 9,263 plug-in versions (1,691 BEVs in 12 months and 7,572 PHEVs in 8 months).

According to Steve Center – Honda Vice President, Connected & Environmental Business Development Office – Honda Motor Co.:

“It’s important for society to be conscientious about this, tolerate the early inconveniences and think long term,”

Center noted that consumers wanted electrified cars that will be bigger and with higher range – “That’s what we are providing.” Well, in terms of the Clarity PHEV, which almost matches the Chevrolet Volt in range, the size factor could be true.

No one knows when FCVs will finally take off (if ever), but it’s hard to believe that manufacturers would be able to slash the prices of vehicles and expand hydrogen refueling infrastructure with hydrogen at affordable prices in just a matter of several years. The breakthrough would need to happen now to provide a better value proposition in near-term.

The problem is that in the next several years, the plug-in car market is expected to grow from 1.6% market share to at least several percent. It’s a huge starting advantage over FCVs.

Honda Clarity Fuel Cell sales in U.S. – June 2018


Categories: Honda

Tags: , ,

Leave a Reply

99 Comments on "Honda Confident Fuel Cell Vehicles Will Go Mainstream: No Timeline"

newest oldest most voted

In the meantime, Tesla Model 3 is causing Honda’s US sales to haemorrhage. Honda waiting for FCV technology to become viable may become a wait to their death.

Don’t know Honda’s fuel cell numbers but for some perspective, Toyota Mirai fuel cell has been on sale for a couple of years in the US and sold 143 units in July compared to Tesla Model 3 that just moved 14,250. That’s 100x. A lot of manufactures cry production constraints while the Model 3 actually is constrained by manufacturing.

You can drive a fuel cell up and down the US west coast today. In the future, you might do the same on the east coast. In the distant future, you may travel the interstates, but as CDAVIS points out below, you will never see it in small town USA. Hydrogen may find its niche while EVs find mainstream. When EVs make up 30% of the market, gasoline infrastructure will take a hit. How can you introduce yet a third infrastructure, one that is expensive to build out and one that will always cost more to fuel than an EV? In a way, I like that California is subsidizing fuel cells, for like the subsidizing of coal, it will prove that even with loads of money, the superior methods will prevail.

Actually, right now, you can’t. There’s a shortage at the Hydrogen stations, according to other InsideEV comments which I went looking for and verified. The single hydrogen supplier (for the stations where it is trucked in) is having issues for unknown reason.

Lol. 4th largest automotive company in the world

Ford used to be number 1…

So nice to see honda proven wrong and destroyed, toyota as well.

rofl, Tesla is a total joke. Elon with his fool cells comment will look the biggest fool soon. Tesla will not even be around in a couple of years when the fuel cell revolution will begin.

So foolish you are.

Few if any here have even heard of Toyota’s zero emission truck that has been delivering for a few months now. These little fanboys with their posters of Muskrat on their ceilings are hilarious. The real fun will begin when sites like inside EV’s realize that China is going hydrogen big time.

Traditional car makers have thus far failed (both alone and as a group) to provide a fast charge network for Battery EVs… they are waiting for someone else to build that for them. Yes supposedly it’s “in the works”… “coming soon” but that’s not the same as installed.

A hydrogen charging network is an order of magnitude more costly to install than battery fast charge and the available hydrogen install points are much more limited because dealing with an explosive substance under high presssure… therefor hydrogen stations will likely never get built at scale.

Battery EV full charging can be done at home… hydrogen EVs require away from home fuel station visits for each fill-up. That’s the biggy that is often overlooked… it’s great so wake up with a fully charge EV each morning and only need visit a charge station for long distance trips.

Traditional car makers like Honda and Toyota are making a huge mistake spending large $$$ resources and organizational focus on hydrogen when those resources should instead be directed towards being competitive with full battery EVs. It’s going to bite them in the as*.

Yup. $1M-$2M for a hydrogen pump and $100k-$200k for a DC fast charger (pick your brand).

To be fair, hydrogen station will probably be slightly faster this you would need fewer stations (looks at current state of hydrogen stations in Cal and shakes head).

On the other hand, since you can only fill hydrogen at the pump, you would probably need more stations, since most EVs will be filled at home (not sure about total price of numerous cheap future apartment chargers).

Hydrogen, it’s the future and most likely will always be.

I did some quick calculations about this. For my 100,000 vehicle town (14,385 vehicles filling each day assuming only filling once per week) we would need 48 hydrogen pumps, assuming each vehicle charges once per week and you can fill up in 5mins 24hrs per day. The reality is you probably need quite a lot more pumps as people don’t fill up across the 24hr period evenly. And it doesn’t account for travellers coming into the town. If the hydrogen pump cost $1mil, that’s $48mil for that infrastructure, probably 4x by the time you factor in that uneven spread. Just look at how many petrol pumps there are in your town and you realise you need exactly that many hydrogen pumps, plus some extras because hydrogen is slightly slower than gas. So for $48mil you should be able to install about 192 DC chargers (guessing about $250/stall), that’s probably the high price so more than likely you can install a lot more, plus the hydrogen guess is very low side, so it’s actually going to be significantly more. Or you can install 9,600 L2 chargers (assuming about $5k per charger, again probably a very high estimate). Now most home owners… Read more »

Nice half attempt. $250 for a DC charger? Who are you kidding? A cheap clipper creek 240 V 3.3 KW charger costs near $500.

The other issue in your math is that hydrogen station is different than a hydrogen pump. Take a look at some pictures of H2 stations (look up my thread on Clarity fuel cell in IEV forums). You can have 8-16 pumps at one station to support more volume, just like gas cars. The storage and cooling mechanism can be shared. Only each pump will need a separate compressor to push hydrogen at the high 700 bar pressure.
Try dividing your $48 million by 10, and multiplying your DC charger cost by 20 to be more realistic.

Obviously, he meant $250,000, not $250. And that’s actually the cost of a station with several stalls.

His estimate for hydrogen on the other hand is extremely low.

Every time there’s an article about fool cell cars here on InsideEVs, we see exactly the same fool cell fanboys popping up to make exactly the same tired, long-discredited arguments. It has long past gotten tiresome pointing out the Truth.

Reality check: The real-world price for building H2 filling stations is $1 million per dozen fool cell cars filled per day. Sure, that might come down somewhat if built in large numbers, but it can’t come down that far because the infrastructure is much, much more complex and expensive than required for a gasoline filling station (or a BEV fast-charging station). Despite the wishful thinking from fool cell fanboys, the price hasn’t come down significantly in the 3-4 years that Toyota has been selling the Mirai.

H2 fueling stations never will be built in large numbers, because the whole thing is insanely impractical, wasteful, polluting, and ridiculously expensive.

Really good discussion. Assume you mean 250k per DC fast charger.

Actually, hydrogen stations able to service more vehicles are a lot more expensive than the entry price for low-volume stations.

And 3 times the cost at the pump at least…

“Yup. $1M-$2M for a hydrogen pump and $100k-$200k for a DC fast charger (pick your brand).”

But the joy of filling up my tank in 5 minutes and taking off while Teslas and other EVs wait in hour long line to get a charging spot: PRICELESS 🙂
And the joy of taking a flight instead of toiling with an electric car to make the cross country trip (plenty of money in pocket due to cheaper lease deal): PRICELESS!

No shortage of hydrogen now. Was just for a few days few stations had issues.
The FUDsters are in full swing here. People, check for truth instead of reading these FUDster comments.
Just filled my car on way back from work. No problemo, Senors i Senoritas.

Except that EVs not doing cross-country trips don’t have to wait at chargers *at all*.

You mean, check the Big Oil propaganda website promoting the “hydrogen economy” hoax: the California Fuel Cell Partnership website,

The one which claimed there would be more than 100 H2 fueling stations opened by 2017. Oh wait, 2018. Oh wait, 2019.

It’s not FUD to point out that trying to use highly compressed H2 as a fuel for daily transportation is insanely impractical, horribly wasteful, and on a well-to-wheel basis almost as polluting as using gasoline. It’s not FUD to point out that compressed H2 is almost literally the worst possible choice for a fuel. It’s not FUD to point out that even if all that wasn’t the case, it would still cost far too much to build all the necessary very expensive and highly complex H2 fueling stations.

It’s simply the Truth.

I suspect that many of those who make strong negative comments about fuel cells have little interest in learning about the latest developments FC technology … which kind of reminds me the way some ICE diehards denounce EV’s 🙂

Meantime some of the smartest scientists are working on obtaining hydrogen more cheaply from non-fossil sources, and on improving fuel cells …

That’s a “maybe, sometime”; not something making FCVs viable now or in the foreseeable future.

About as likely as lithium-air batteries, which would blow away hydrogen tanks on energy density.

What are you smoking? Never spent more time at a Tesla supercharger then it took me to go to the bathroom or get food. Add the fact that I do 90% of my charging at home when I don’t use my car and it cost about a fifth of what gas cost and you just look foolish. You sir are a dinosaur. Go grab your flip phone and try to text someone.

Let them try, I would be happy with 10-12% FCV, 50% BEV, 40% ICE by 2050 it would be better than 1% BEV and 99% ICE as it stands today. CONNECT THE DOTS ON CLEAN AIR WAKE UP FOLKS thanks

Problem is, promises of a bright hydrogen future sometime down the road have been and are used as a smoke screen to deflect calls for more investment in EVs.

(Also, 40% ICE in 2050 sounds very very unlikely… They should be mostly gone past 2030 or so.)

Are you kidding? Toyota is the king of hybrid cars, so they invested plenty into EVs. Mostly gone by 2030? Just shows how clueless you are.

They only did that because they make big bucks fixing those cars that need to burn something.

Similarly, I remain confident that within a year I will be recognized as the King of Canada.

King Louie has a nice ring to it. I feel a Disney song coming on…

Your Majesty!

All you Helpful Honda Folks, Hail His Majesty,
The Canuck King of Nothingham!!!

I think a FC range extender would be fantastic – enough battery range to manage daily life and FC for extended trips.

Yes that’s true but it’s still a beta product. Look at designs of the cars

I have an F150 and would love one with an extender. I could see that as long as I lived within 5-10 miles of a fueling station. Sound reasonable? Now map out how many fueling stations that would require in the continental US.

EVs are said to suffer range anxiety though slowly changing with 200-300 mile versions and infrastructure to handle it. Without the infrastructure, fuel cells not only suffer from range anxiety, they suffer range constraints. Three competing infrastructures will make that difficult. ICEs will be here for a long time. EVs aren’t going away. Now you have to carve a third? It better be the superior answer in practically every metric.

I don’t think the 5-10 miles requirement is necessary at all. For a weekend warrior such as myself (my cabin is off grid, so I need healthy range to get in, play, get out), all I need is a small range extender to slow the battery drain on long trips and to slowly charge the battery while parked at the cabin, boat ramp, etc. I certainly don’t want to run an ICE at the cabin. So when do I need to fill up the FC fuel tank? The answer is anytime during the week. With kids in sports, commuting to work, etc, I’m all over (and just outside of the city too) so there is plenty of opportunity to drop in and fill up. So 4 stations in a large city (north, west, south and east sides of the city) is plenty. And fuel cells can be designed to run on propane (actually many fuels can be used, not just hydrogen). Propane filling stations are ubiquitous in cottage country. In fact I have a 500lb tank at my cabin that I could use in emergencies (with appropriate transfer valve/adapter). And where I live, nearly everyone has natural gas to their… Read more »

Fuel cells powered by propane would be great (natural gas even better), but unfortunately they’re effectively fantasy for transportation due to cost. AFAIK Bloom Energy is the SOFC leader right now, and they’re charging $8000/kW. For a weak 25kW range extender to cost $2000, that price needs to drop 2 orders of magnitude!

It will take a revolutionary technology for any non-H2 fuel cells to be useful for transportation.

I don’t think it’s that expensive to put an onboard fuel reformer into a FCEV. That would make it at least potentially a practical car, in the way that a H2-powered FCEV — a fool cell car — never will be.

Bloom Energy charging a non-competitive price for its fuel cell (one that I guess doesn’t need a reformer?) won’t last forever. The price of similar systems will come down over time, and probably come down drastically.

If there is any future in using fuel cells to power cars, it’s going to come from cars powered by a practical fuel, such as natural gas or propane or methane or even (gasp!) gasoline. Not highly compressed H2, or anything nearly as impractical!

Synthetic fuels are even more expensive and inefficient than hydrogen. Or are you suggesting sticking with fossils forever?

No, synthetic methane would be much more practical than renewable H2 as an everyday transportation fuel, and the pump price would be far less than H2 if made in quantity. It would cost more to generate, but most of the cost, energy loss, and pollution from the H2 supply chain comes after the H2 is generated.

That’s something fool cell fanboys would like us to ignore.

I don’t see how it matters whether the energy loss comes before or after synthesis?… Inefficient is inefficient.

Note that I’m specifically talking about power-to-fuel here. Synthetic fuels from biomass should be more efficient in terms of energy, but are problematic because of land use.

Also, just installing some solar cells at your cabin would be way cheaper than anything involving fuel cells…

I agree. PHEVs work because a huge network of gas stations already exist and electrical outlets in homes already exist. In order for a plugin FC vehicle to be practical you now have to introduce a huge network of hydrogen fuel stations that is equivalent in scale to the current gas station network all for the 10% of the time a plugin FC vehicle would require fuel.

If you are going to go through the trouble of installing a hydrogen infrastructure that costs hundreds of billions then it might as well be for pure HFCVs and ditch the plugin part. Or it you have a plugin that covers 90% of your miles then why not just go ahead and cover that last 10% with a bigger battery and a cheaper Supercharger network like the one that already exists for Tesla and their 310 mile range EV.

That just seems to make WAY TOO MUCH SENSE!

By any chance do you have any other “better ideas”?

Right. The ICE infrastructure is there already, so it becomes natural for the transition to all electric. The 100,000+ Chevy Volt fleet data already proves this reduces the fuel use by 70% which ultimately kills the gas infrastructure as it would for hydrogen. Same goes for Brian’s comments on propane. Ubiquitous in cabin country and ubiquitous is largely different things. So to my original post and to the point of the article, hydrogen may be a niche but unlikely mainstream. IMO

No, propane or some other synthetic fuel (perhaps methane) could also be used for other purposes, such as replacing the heating oil used in the NE USA. That could lead to an economy of scale in production of synthetic fuel far superior to anything we’ll ever see for a fuel as horribly impractical, wasteful, and expensive as highly compressed hydrogen.

Just like BEVs are way more efficient than FCVs, electric heating (using heat pumps) is way more efficient than heating using synthetic fuels.

(Thermal storage can provide additional benefits.)

“If you are going to go through the trouble of installing a hydrogen infrastructure that costs hundreds of billions then it might as well be for pure HFCVs and ditch the plugin part.”

Well said!

Those who suggest using H2 as a “range extender” fuel are ignoring the fact that this means even lower demand for H2 than using it as the primary energy source, which means H2 fueling stations would be even more rare and hard to find.

Thus making the whole concept even more impractical than using H2 as a primary fuel for transportation, and finding something even more impractical than that is achieving a difficult goal indeed! 😉

Fuel cells and hydrogen tanks are way too expensive and bulky to use as range extender. Frankly, you’d be better off just lugging around a generator in the trunk for a rarely used “range extender”. It’s actually more ecological than hydrogen production, too…

Honda is funny. I love thier seden designs. I like the insight too.😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭

Every “Democracy” seems to be corrupted by money.
The Japanese natural gas industry looking for a way into the auto business.

And with the recent Trump rollback of the emissions standards here in the US the US oil industry is looking for a way to stay in the auto business.

The Big 5 O&G Corps, are in it to win it!

These old fool cell fossil fuelers, just won’t leave, EVen when Tesla has politely shown them the door!

I think Honda is well aware hydrogen is a pipe dream, but they’re playing along because it makes it look as though they are doing something while stalling for time to sell fossil fuel cars as long as possible.

A bit like some nuclear shills. They promote nuclear as the solution that’s just around the corner, and always will be as a way of avoiding installing renewables now, just so they can burn fossil fuels as long as possible.

+1 – Honda is stalling 100%

In France, Hungary and Slovakia more than 50% of electricity comes from nuclear power plants, and there are new plants under construction in a variety of countries. Can’t explain all of this by “shill activities”.

He is talking about promised new “safe, clean and cheap” nuclear reactor types supposedly being just around the corner…

Actually, yes, you can explain all current nuclear investments by corruption. They make no sense economically, and the vast majority of the population doesn’t want them.

The vast majority of the population only “doesn’t want them” because the mass media has been so successful in promoting hysteria over “RADIATION!!”, partly as a result of propaganda funded by Big Oil.

We can see the result in Japan, where the Fukushima melt-down accident (falsely labeled a “disaster”) was followed by the Japanese government forcing everyone to move out of a region where 85% of the area doesn’t have any higher background radiation than Denver, Colorado. Only about 15% of the area is actually contaminated enough to be even a minor health hazard, yet public hysteria is so high that even in a nation as densely populated as Japan, they’ve semi-permanently abandoned hundreds of square miles of residential/ commercial areas for no good reason.

Human beings are not rational animals!

The many grass-roots organisations working to oppose nuclear power have nothing to do with big oil. There are no grass-roots organisations promoting fossil fuels. This tells us which causes are pushed by corporations, and which ones actually come from the population at large.

That’s just foolish as solar is so much more cheaper and safer

An even more striking parallel are promises of Carbon Capture being just around the corner, as an excuse for keeping fossil plants…

You have a lot to learn about modern, truly fail-safe designs for nuclear power plants.

France has already demonstrated that it’s quite practical — and safe — to get the vast majority (~80% in France until very recently) from commercial nuclear power, as well as dealing with the problem of nuclear waste, which is falsely claimed to be an unsolvable problem.

It’s sad that the news media has been so successful in hoodwinking the public into believing that nuclear power poses an unacceptable danger from “RADIATION!!” when the reality is it’s far, far safer in terms of public health and safety than coal-fired power plants!

There is no point in discussing which is the lesser evil, when we have alternatives far better than either of them.

When electricity is free, the hydrogen timeline will seem real

I hope my electricity company notifies me soon, about the New Free kWh Program, because for some reason, they still keep cashing my monthly payment checks.

I still keep waiting for the AEC’s Strauss for Nuclear generated electricity that was, per him, “Too Cheap to Meter”; a lie even when he said it. Currently the highest North American electricity prices are in areas with substantial Nuclear Generation. Far from the ‘well over 1000’ Nuclear Plants expected by the year 2000, in 2018 we barely have 100 in the states, (if that), and they are being retired at a far more rapid rate than they are being replaced. In my own state the large Indian Point 2 and 3 reactors are soon to be shut down, with no new nuclear planned state wide to replace them.

Really? Here in eastern Kansas, about 90 miles from the Wolf Creek nuclear power plant, we get about 20% of our electricity from nuclear power. Is the electricity rate here especially high, at 11.29¢/kWh?

No, I don’t think so. Too bad they don’t build more clean, safe nuclear power reactors here, to replace all the dirty, polluting coal-fired plants which spew so much deadly pollution into the air every year!

No, too bad they don’t build more renawables, which can replace the polluting coal plants just as well, while taking a fraction of the time and cost of nuclear.

Yeah, I’d say your electricity is relatively high priced, considering only 1/5 th of iuice comes from Nuclear. I pay 10 1/2 cents/ kwh with somewhat less Nuclear – but the rates are company wide which gets on and off, 30% from Nuclear..

I’m not going to argue the point since the NY State Legislature MANDATED increased electricity rates to keep existing Nuclear plants in the state viable for several years longer – the Justification being, per them, Nuclear Power has no Green House Gasses. The fact that a majority of people near the plants wanted them shut down (supposedly, they were ESSENTIAL for reliability purposes), – and many people said particularly those in Rochester – “We don’t care about extreme reliability – shut them down and lower our rates!”.

I have to disagree. Where does the “safe” nuclear waste go?

That’s because you live in America, owning an EV in England means free electricity from midnight to 4am.

The entire UK is only about as large as the US state of Oregon. We have a wide variety of electricity plans on our 3 grids, many of which include “free” energy at night whether you own an EV it not.
Just yesterday, coincidentally, I received an ad from Reliant Power for “free” energy 9 pm to 6 am. Of course, the price for their “non-free” energy was 13 cents per kWh compared to my 7 cent plan sans “free” energy at night.

When electricity is free, the fossil fuel giants who own the hydrogen stations will still want me to pay for the hydrogen. So I can charge my new 310 mile Tesla Model 3 for free but pay to drive the Honda or Toyota. Got it……

Free is probably not enough. When there are over generation of Solar and Wind power, they pay you to take electricity, maybe hydrogen timeline will seem real.

Negative prices are actually just a regulatory oddity, because conventional generators can’t ramp down sufficiently, while curtailing renewables is undesirable in terms of encouraging further adoption… There is no real technical reason for negative prices; and once renewables are predominant, there won’t be a political reason either.

Electrolysis cells are too expensive to be competitive even with free electricity.

Hydrogen is not a source of energy, it’s an energy storage mechanism in liquid form.

So let’s look at hydrogen compared to batteries:

Very low density
Very pernicious
Causes metal embrittlement
Release an invisible gas when it’s leaking so you can’t tell that it’s leaking
Extremely flammable with an invisible flame

Yep, let’s go with hydrogen fuel cells.

No manufacturer is making passenger cars running on liquid hydrogen.

True, but H2 is liquified using cryogenic cooling to transport it from the generating plant to H2 fueling stations. That’s one of several reasons why H2 at the pump is much, much more expensive than just the initial cost of generating it.

I doubt it. They don’t truck hydrogen that way – even when liquefied. Hydrogen’s trouble is that it requires 4 trucks worth of liquid H2 to get the energy of 1 truck of gasoline. Since the H2 car is double the efficiency of an ICE, in general that means 2 H2 tanker trucks are required for every 1 gasoline tanker truck now required.

Cooling such as you are stating is the hard way to do it since there is no requirement that it be done portably. adsorbed heat could be simply boiled off, or, it would be a good use for the H2 Semi’s everyone seems to be making or planning. Don’t waste the boil off, just push the truck down the road, or charge its buffer battery.

Only if the public pays for a national refueling network. Same massive boondogle as when the trucking industry was lobbing for a free national natural gas refueling network.

I am pretty confident I am not buying any honda let alone fuel cell, simply because there are better products on the market.

It’s just like me saying rainbow fart will go mainstream someday, but don’t know when.. 🙂

I’m confident Honda will go downstream. Timeline “soon enough”.

Hmm, quick search for nearest Hydrogen station to me, 38 miles! Do I want a car which has electricity delivered straight to a battery pack or do I want a car where electricity is used to separate Hydrogen from water, methane (greenhouse gas) or Natural Gas (greenhouse gas). Then electricity is used to store it at minus 200 degrees Celsius, Diesel is then used by a Tanker to transport the Hydrogen to the station and then electricity has to be used to store it at minus 200 degrees Celsius at the Hydrogen station 38 miles away from where I live. In a word, NO!



“The problem is that in the next several years, the plug-in car market is expected to grow from 1.6% market share to at least several percent. It’s a huge starting advantage over FCVs.”

By that logic, the huge starting advantage belongs to ICEs.

No, it doesn’t. If we ignore pollution and global warming, there is no reason to talk about alternative fuels in the first place. In terms of solutions to these problems, batteries make way more sense long-term than fuel cells economically as well as ecologically, *and* have huge starting advantages.

“By that logic, the huge starting advantage belongs to ICEs.”

That’s not a “starting” advantage, that’s a steady-state advantage of being mainstream. Just as at one time, horses and livery stables had the mainstream advantage over motorcars, especially in the era before gas stations.

Plug-in EVs are going to replace gasmobiles because they’re more practical and within a few years will be more affordable, just as motorcars replaced horses for the same reason. Fool cell cars, running on a more expensive and much, much less practical fuel than gasmobiles… not so much!

The day I can do electrolysis at home using a sub-$300 device that could give my car at least 200 miles of range overnight using a 6kW power outlet, I might consider getting a fuel cell car.

Yea, I want to be completely reliant on another monopoly for my fuel needs again. Get outta town.

Yeah, fool cell cars will “go mainstream” just as soon as those promoting the “hydrogen economy” hoax figure out how to repeal the Laws of Thermodynamics so they can profitably make and sell H2 at a price competitive with gasoline.

Real soon now! 🙄

Of course, if they do figure out some magic way to “fool Mother Nature”, then they might as well go directly to a perpetual motion device to power cars. Why fiddle around with the complexity, waste, and expense of trying to use something as pernicious and impractical as compressed hydrogen to power a car?

As I have already said in another thread, I hope the research in the field of direct methanol fuel cells (DMFC) will yield practical results soon. I believe the current FCEV all have a large enough high power battery, charged by the fuel cell – which means we can consider them “series hybrids” (I guess?). Perhaps the true killer of the ICE car will be not the pure BEV but the PHEV, equipped with a DMFC instead of an ICE range extender.

Yeah, compressed hydrogen seems the hard way to do things. By the time they get practical issues ironed out schemes as you describe will come along that are more cost-effective.

Yeah since the top 5 trade ins for a model 3 include the Accord and Civic Honda is in trouble. They killed the insight so perhaps the chickens have come home to roost. Sad. When I was young I was a hugh Civic/crx fan. I sold my Odyssey to get my model 3. Could not be happier.

No one who rents their home, or plans to send their vehicle to college with their child, or intends to sell their home in the future, could reasonably choose a BEV. That is why other options are necessary.