Hyundai Began Sales Of Tucson Fuel Cell In Northern California. Over 100 Delivered in U.S.




Hyundai is expanding its Tucson Fuel Cell vehicle’s availability into the U.S, specifically to Capitol Hyundai of San Jose – the fifth dealer overall to have the car, and the first in Northern California.

For now, the hydrogen version of Hyundai Tucson is available for lease only, at selected dealerships.  So far, just to over 100 FCVs have been delivered in the US.

Taking into consideration the official launch date of June 2014, over 100 deliveries in about ~2 years doesn’t seem like mass-market application status has yet been reached for hydrogen cars.

“Since its launch in June 2014, Tucson Fuel Cell drivers have accumulated more than one million zero-emissions miles on the streets of California (Zero-Emissions Cumulative Mileage). This accumulated mileage has helped improve air quality in the region by more than 400 tons of CO2 emissions when compared with the emissions from a similar internal-combustion-powered CUV. Hyundai has delivered more than 100 Tucson Fuel Cells since its introduction as the first mass-produced fuel cell vehicle in the U.S. market.”

One of the important notes in the press release is that dealers aren’t faced with an easy task to be hydrogen-ready. Requirements are listed as “significant“.

“To become a qualified Hyundai Fuel Cell dealer, approved dealers must fulfill significant additional hydrogen fuel cell requirements in both customer service and technical services.”

Here you can lease Hyundai Tucson Fuel Cell or test drive the 265 mile range on the hydrogen:

  • Keyes Hyundai
  • Tustin Hyundai
  • Win Hyundai in Carson
  • Hardin Hyundai in Anaheim
  • Capitol Hyundai

Mr. Shaun Del Grande, Owner, Capitol Hyundai/Del Grande Dealer Group said:

“Capitol Hyundai is excited to be a qualified dealer for Hyundai’s zero-emissions Tucson Fuel Cell hydrogen electric vehicle. Our location in the Bay Area region is Hyundai’s first in Northern California, making it more convenient for local residents to conveniently acquire their new Tucson Fuel Cell CUV, helping reduce greenhouse gas emissions where they work and live.”

Dave Zuchowski, president and CEO, Hyundai Motor America said:

“Hyundai is proud to add Capitol Hyundai to its growing collection of approved zero-emissions Tucson Fuel Cell dealers. Capitol Hyundai adds a convenient location in the Bay Area to better serve our newest fuel cell customers in Northern California.”

Category: Hyundai


38 responses to "Hyundai Began Sales Of Tucson Fuel Cell In Northern California. Over 100 Delivered in U.S."
  1. “Since its launch in June 2014, Hyundai has delivered more than 100 Tucson Fuel Cells since its introduction as the first mass-produced fuel cell vehicle in the U.S. market.”

    That is less action than I have had guests show up at EV Fest Electric Vehicle Show in any year since it began in 2010! I have had nearly as many Exhibitors of EV’s at the show!

    More so, by a magnitude of over a 1,000, are FCV’s dependant of Newly Built, rediculously Expensive Infrastructure, than BEV’s!

    For the $$ spent on one H2 Fueling Location (FCV Fuel Station), 20 – 30 DC Quick Chargers can be installed, and in 1/4 – 1/10th the time, with the additional advantage that DC QC’s could be installed multiples of 5 at each spot for redundancy, and still serve 4 to 6 separate locations, versus just one H2 Fueling Station – likey inconvenient for some FCV owners!

  2. FCV’s are sillier ideas today than ICE vehicles were in their infancy!

    However, I think the only way for them to gain traction, is to bite the expensive bullet, and go the way of the Volt, and create the ER-FCV, adding 35 to 50 miles Battery Range, so they can access Home Charging and Public Charging – using the Fuel Cell as an Extra Range Solution, and a backup dor sudden trips not planned for within the EV range component!

    The Battery Electric Range could also give them a way to get to an H2 Station and back home, without using up their precious Hydrogen!!

    They will also be leased only, as no one would buy them at the price they would have to sell them for, except for wealthy bragging rights!

    If they could make a Tucson FCV-EREV, and deliver it at or below $65,000, with 50 Miles Battery Electric Range, DC QC capable, and with a 12 kW AC Capable onboard Charger, they could have something that just might work!

    If they could deliver it at $39,995.00 – they might actually convince volume sales to happen over 100 a month!

    1. HVACman says:

      An EREV-FCV probably would not work.

      The hydrogen tanks take up so much room that there is not much left to also include the 16-18 kWh battery pack required for a EREV type vehicle. See assembly photos of the Mirai to get an idea of just how big the tanks (Mirai requires two) really are. Not to mention what a tank an EREV-FCV would be. The Mirai weighs over 4,000 pounds. 18 kWh of battery would add another 450 pounds. It would accelerate like a slug.

    2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      I admit it utterly mystifies me as to why anyone who understands the multiple reasons why hydrogen-powered cars are wildly impractical, and will always remain so, would turn around and try to assert that somehow what can’t and won’t ever work in a pure H2 powered car, would somehow work if it was a plug-in hybrid.

      Will that solve the problem that it’s massively more expensive, per car, to build H2 fueling stations than can possibly ever be recouped by profit from selling hydrogen fuel? No.

      Will that solve the problem of hydrogen fuel being much too expensive to ever compete with a practical fuel such as gasoline, methane, or biodiesel? No.

      Will that solve the chicken-and-the-egg problem that there won’t ever be enough sales of “fool cell” cars in any area to justify building even one public H2 fueling station? No.

      Will that solve the problem that if your “fuel cell” car runs low on fuel, there will be very few places in the entire country to fill it up again? No.

      So just why in the world would anyone actually try to claim that somehow a plug-in hybrid fuel cell EV, a PHFCEV, make any more sense than a pure FCEV? The one makes just as little sense as the other.

      I really wish people would make more effort to apply critical thinking before writing posts.

  3. James says:

    Wonder if they had a $40k party to celebrate the 100th car.

  4. SparkEV says:

    While FCEV would reduce air pollution, how did they come up with 400 tons of CO2 emissions? Much of H is made from nat gas, so it would seem there’d be quite a bit of CO2 released. Math, anyone?

    1. Yoda says:

      Something like 98 percent of the worlds hydrogen comes from cracking natural gas..,

      So they probably assume theirs comes from the 2 percent…

      1. sven says:

        That’s a useless and misleading statistic. Currently, 46% of the hydrogen used as transportation fuel in California is made from renewable hydrogen. The vast majority of global hydrogen production is used to make fertilizer and to refine crude oil, and those industries source their hydrogen from natural gas. Those industries and the how they make hydrogen has absolutely nothing to do with transportation hydrogen and it’s source.

        It’s like saying 99% or the world’s car batteries are lead-acid batteries, and only 1% are lithium-ion batteries. That’s also a useless and misleading statistic. One type of battery is used to start an engine, while the other is used to power the propulsion motors. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other.

        1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          Well I’ve seen it claimed, by many sources, that 95% of commercial-scale hydrogen production is made by reforming natural gas. That statistic is neither misleading nor meaningless. It’s an excellent indicator of just why there are so many problems getting H2 fuel even at the few public H2 fueling stations that have been built in Southern California. Generating H2 via electrolysis, powered by “green” electricity or some other renewable energy source, is a slow, energy-intensive process. So relying on on-site generation via electrolysis means the stations can only produce a rather limited amount per day. And if, heaven help them, they try to rely on solar power to do so, then that limits the output even more.

          That’s why there are so many reports of H2 fueling stations being closed so much of the time, or when they’re open, limiting customers to only half a tank of H2 fuel, due to limited supply.

          And that’s why large-scale commercial hydrogen production uses natural gas reformation rather than electrolysis. Because using natural gas is much quicker, much easier, and uses the energy already present in natural gas, instead requiring the generating company to provide that energy — and pay for it — during generation.

          Now, sven, why is that so difficult for you to understand? Looks like a case of…

          “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!” –Upton Sinclair

        2. Speculawyer says:

          “Currently, 46% of the hydrogen used as transportation fuel in California is made from renewable hydrogen.”

          That is also a completely useless and misleading statistic. By “renewable hydrogen” they mean steam-reformed methane coming from sources like landfills and farm manure. Well there is only a very limited amount of that kind of methane such that they could never scale it up without going to much higher amounts of traditional natural gas and fracked gas.

          This “renewable hydrogen” is a non-scalable greenwashing.

    2. sven says:

      The CO2 emissions for a Hyundai Tuscon are as follows:

      ICE Tuscon running on gasoline: 436 gCO2eq/mile

      Tucson FCEV (100% of hydrogen from natural gas): 286 gCO2eq/mile, 34% less than ICE Tuscon

      Tuscon FCEV (33% renewable California hydrogen): 202 gCO2eq/mile, 54% less than ICE Tuscon

      Tuscon FCEV (46% renewable California hydrogen): 173 gCO2eq/mile, 60% less than ICE Tuscon

      In 2015, 46% of the hydrogen sold as transportation fuel in California was made from renewable sources, exceeding the California mandate requiring 33% renewable hydrogen.

      1. JimGord says:

        A BEV running on renewable energy = 0 gCO2e/mile
        So what is your point about dirty hydrogen?
        lowering to 173 g/mile is not enough – not nearly enough not to mention horrifically expensive for H2 infrastructure
        Hydrogen even from renewables is DOA

        1. sven says:

          I was answering SparkEVs question: “Math, anyone?” with some published CO2 figures for the Hyundai Tuscon.

          A HFCV running on hydrogen made from renewable energy = 0 gCO2e/mile

          Is your car plugged in and charging when your solar panels are generating electricity during the day? You do realize that when you plug in an EV at night into the outlet, that the electricity coming from the outlet is mostly made from burning fossil fuels. Net metering offsets are only for billing purposes, the actual electricity charging your car was not made by your solar panels. And no you can’t count the solar you make during the day as the electricity you use at night to charge your car. You sold your solar electricity to your electric utility (at full retail rates) and it was instantly used by your neighbors. Since the solar electricity you generated was already counted as part of the electric grid’s mix during the day, you can’t count it again for yourself at night when you charge. That would be double counting.

          However, if you owned a home battery storage system like a Powerwall, you could use the solar electricity you made in the day to charge your EV at night. But you don’t do that, do you? It doesn’t make financial sense with or without net metering.

          So what is your point about using dirty electricity at night to charge your EV?

          1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

            sven said:

            “A HFCV running on hydrogen made from renewable energy = 0 gCO2e/mile”

            Really? No, not really.

            Even if those so-called “clean hydrogen” fueling stations generate H2 on site, they still depend on tanker trucks full of compressed to be delivered to the station. And even if that delivered H2 was made by unicorns out of rainbows, which it’s not, at the very least the trucks which deliver that fuel run on diesel.

            The claim that there is any practical way to actually achieve 0 emissions, or near-zero emissions, in the well-to-wheel chain of supply for hydrogen fueled vehicles, is ignoring reality. It’s ignoring reality very, very firmly indeed!

          2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

            And if you want data and hard facts to back it up, here’s a good source:


            In particular, CleanTechnia says:

            “Every emissions reduction technology including ordinary small engined gasoline and diesel vehicles compares favorably to the DOE’s official NREL [National Renewable Energy Laboratory] emissions numbers for hydrogen when the comparison given is a reasonable one. A vehicle of the same 90~100kW power output as a Fuel Cell Vehicle (and not a 200+kW 23 MPG gas guzzler).”

            Some data from that source:

            100% (benchmark) = 23 MPG gasoline vehicle
            484g CO2 emissions/mile WTW (Well To Wheel)

            90 kW Mercedes gasoline = 60%

            100 kW Fuel Cell Vehicle
            NREL average case = 73.5%
            356g CO2 emissions/mile WTW

            100 kW Fuel Cell Vehicle
            NREL best case = 49%
            237 CO2 emissions/mile WTW

            100 kW Prius HEV = 46%

            100 kW BEV US grid average = 35%

            100 kW BEV in California = 14%
            PG&E Grid
            67g CO2 emissions/mile WTW

            * * * * *

            So, to sum it up: The EPA and the NREL say that the best case scenario for a FCEV is more than three times worse than the best case scenario for a BEV, regarding well-to-wheel emissions. And comparing average nationwide cases, the BEV has a better than 2-to-1 advantage over the FCEV.

            Hmmm, who to believe? Clean Technia, the EPA, and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory… or a physics denier who appears to be shilling for Big Oil?

            Gosh, who to believe, who to believe… [/snark]

          3. RCM says:

            Charging a BEV is zero emissions if the grid power comes from a 100% renewable energy source. Here are a few places where the grid power comes from 100% renewable sources:

            Greensburg, Kansas

            Burlington, Vermont

            Aspen, Colorado


            There are people out there who don’t sell their excess power back to the utility company, instead they store it in their battery bank. Charging a BEV with this type of PV setup would produce true zero emissions.

      2. SparkEV says:

        436 g/mi for 1M miles = 436 metric tons.
        173 g/mi for 1M miles = 173 metric tons.

        Math is that FCEV emits no CO2 driven for 1M miles for “saved over 400 tons” to work out. Or maybe 1M miles driven is actually 1.6M miles? Or maybe similar ICE CUV emits much more? Either way, things don’t add up. But then, I don’t care about CO2 anyway.

        1. sven says:

          “Or maybe 1M miles driven is actually 1.6M miles?”

          That’s “more than” likely the answer, since the quote in the article did say “drivers have accumulated more than one million zero-emissions miles . . . This accumulated mileage has helped improve air quality in the region by more than 400 tons of CO2 emissions. . .” 😉

      3. Speculawyer says:

        I think those numbers are completely bogus.

        This “renewable hydrogen” is not actually less CO2. They are just assuming that the landfill methane would have got into the atmosphere anyway so we are not going to count it.

    3. Djoni says:

      Read carefully.” This accumulated mileage has helped improve air quality in the region by more than 400 tons of CO2 emissions ”
      Witch mean that it just shovel it away of the region it was use.
      The same goes for the next line of green washing line “helping reduce greenhouse gas emissions where they work and live.”
      O.K. where you live and work would be cleaner but in no way they say it will be cleaner overall.
      Ah those wording are so tricky.
      Fine line between lying and saying something that sound like it is one and make everyone believe they in fact say something that they carefully not mention.

  5. ffbj says:

    Wow, they really are flying off the shelves.

  6. Suggesting that some company make a hybrid hydrogen and battery electric vehicle has many problems, but mostly it’s a “solution looking for a problem”.

    Unfortunately, the battery part is the most expensive part of a typical electric vehicle. Certainly, on a hydrogen car, the hydrogen bits are the most expensive. Therefore, a hybrid battery and hydrogen car would be grossly expensive with no place to fill it up.

    If a hybrid is what you want, gasoline and diesel are the ubiquitous choice. If electric power is what you want, the infrastructure is growing very fast.

    If you want an alternative, natural gas would be the logical choice, even if it was a hybrid.

    Hydrogen makes no sense from a carbon standpoint, a financial standpoint, an infrastructure standpoint or a consumer standpoint.

    1. HVACman says:

      An EREV with CNG fuel would have space problems. GM barely squeezed a 9 gallon tank into the Volt. A CNG tank that would give decent range would take up all the space required for the battery.

      With a full EREV with at least 50 miles range like the Gen 2 Volt, 85% of all driven miles will be in electric mode. When only 15% of miles is via ICE engine, from an environmental standpoint, the specific fuel source almost doesn’t matter. Consumption is so small that regular gasoline is almost as good as NG. It is likely that the Gen 2 Volt fleet will average about 1500 miles per 9 gallon fill-up. 160 mpg. That compares to the current US auto fleet average of about 23 mpg.

    2. SparkEV says:

      But aren’t all FCEV are hybrids as they need battery for regenerative braking? I suppose they can do without the battery, but I don’t think anyone’s doing that.

      1. The River Simple hydrogen car in England that has been and development for 16 years uses and 11 hp fuel cell and a whole bunch of capacitors.

        No battery.

        1. SparkEV says:

          Are they selling that? What I meant is in production and selling, and few (three) that I’m aware use battery. Being anti-hybrid, it’s another reason for me not liking FCEV.

          1. Yes, hybrid is nothing but a stop-gap measure between fossil fuels and renewable clean energy.

            With ubiquitous DC fast charge infrastructure at the fastest rate, plus fully capable electric cars, there won’t be any need for hybrid cars.

            I always picture a horse pulling the Ford Model T as the ultimate hybrid from 100 years ago.

    3. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      Tony Williams said:

      “If you want an alternative, natural gas would be the logical choice, even if it was a hybrid.”

      That’s right. Compressed hydrogen is very nearly the worst possible choice for powering an automobile. To find something worse, you’d have to go to, I dunno, maybe dried cow dung or urine.

      * * * * *

      Here’s an extended quote on the subject:

      I don’t want to turn this into a debate on hydrogen fuel cells, because I just think that they’re extremely silly. There’s multiple rebuttals of it online. It’s just very difficult to make hydrogen and store it and use it in a car. Hydrogen is an energy storage mechanism, it’s not a source of energy. So you have to get that hydrogen from somewhere.

      If you get that hydrogen from water, you’re splitting H2O. Electrolysis is extremely inefficient as an energy process. If you took a solar panel and used the energy from that solar panel to just charge a battery pack directly—-compared to try to split water, take the hydrogen, dump the oxygen, compress the hydrogen to an extremely high pressure-—or liquefy it-—and then put it in a car and run a fuel cell… it is about half the efficiency. It’s terrible.

      Why would you do that? It makes no sense. Hydrogen has very low density. It’s a pernicious molecule that likes to get all over the place. If you get hydrogen leaks from invisible gas, you can’t even tell that it’s leaking. But then it’s extremely flammable, when it does, and has an invisible flame.

      If you’re going to pick an energy storage mechanism, hydrogen is an incredibly dumb one to pick. You should just pick methane. That’s much, much easier. Or propane.

      The best case hydrogen fuel cell doesn’t run against the current case batteries. So, then, obviously, it doesn’t make sense. That will become apparent in the next few years. There’s no reason for us to have this debate. I’ve said my piece on this. It will be super-obvious as time goes by.

      -–Elon Musk, January 13, 2015

  7. “The Hyundai and Genesis brands are working on multiple plug-in hybrids that will be an intermediate step before hydrogen fuel cell vehicles take hold in the coming decades, Dave Zuchowski, CEO of Hyundai Motor America, said in an interview.”

    1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      Right. Kinda like how Marxists say “Democracy is the road to socialism.”

      Ummm… how did that work out for the Soviet Union, again? 😉

      1. Steven says:

        Their problem wasn’t a bad idea, it was bad management.

    2. “Hydrogen makes no sense from a carbon standpoint, a financial standpoint, an infrastructure standpoint or a consumer standpoint.”, and yet, Hyundai, Honda, Toyota, are adamant that it is the best, cleanest fuel or energy source or carrier, and won’t listen to reason, are too proud to move away from their stance on FCV’s and abandon their years of slow improvement’s in Fuel Cells, for the better plan of going direct to BEV’s, and that is why I threw out the ER-FCV thought! One, it gives drivers the BEV experience, disguised as a FCV, and shows them how much better a BEV is, even in a shorter range application than a Pure EV has, but is still better, than the fueling experience for the FCV part of the Vehicle!

      It also allows a short lived life for FCV’s, to be crushed as owners of them move to pure BEV’s for their next vehicle!

      Essentially, the FCV promoting OEM’s, are dead set against building an EV that could be as good as a Tesla in it’s class, or, Heaven Forbid, partnering With Tesla, for sharing Supercharger development! GM is consistent in promoting that they are “Not in the Infrastructure Business for EV’s”.

      I did not intend to suggest that ER-FCV’s should be built, but rather – that if said OEM’s who want to promote FCV’s, chose to make them in a plugin hybrid to take away fueling concerns owners are getting, and figured out how to keep the leases down, they might get mire traction! Remember, there are people out there who still think EV’s are less efficient than ICE vehicles!

      (I met one of them, a highly intellectual Engineer whole worked in Electrical Industry – got into a discussion in a book store in Florida yesterday, because I was looking for the Motor Trend Mag with the 3 Tesla’s on the cover and I thought he worked there, lead to him asking me why I am interested in Electric Vehicles, like I was a miss-guided fool!)

      So if FCV’s are bad because they are expensive, and ER-FCV’s would then be more expensive, the good thing could be, is such a game might kill the FCV game faster! Then they could just get on with building and selling great BEV’s!

    3. RCM says:

      So because he said so it must mean it’s true…..ummm…..ok! lol

  8. Clive says:

    Fool-Cell !

  9. sveno says:

    “Began Sales” but its only for lease?

  10. Roy_H says:

    So who are these fools who buy or lease these cars? Do they have a stake in this industry?

    1. Roy_H says:

      I should explain that the only fuel cell car owner I have read about on this site is a contractor who builds these $2M fuel stations.

    2. “So who are these fools who buy or lease these cars?”

      Thank you for asking. I’m one of them. I needed to regularly travel the 90 miles between Stanford’s main campus and the Stanford Hopkins Marine Station (where I work on stock assessment of bluefin tuna) and have at least a little bit of range left over for any small side excursions. For a true zero-emission vehicle (so BMW’s i3 REx while appealing was out) I was willing to lease for up to $500/mo, which put Tesla well outside my price range. However every BEV I looked at that met this price could only just barely make that range, even Mercedes’ B-class BEV, which was too risky for me. Moreover I would need to leave my car charging for several hours before I could make the return trip, another unacceptable constraint.

      Then the Toyota Mirai came on the market at $499/mo plus tax with nothing down after the $5,000 CA rebate along with free fuel and service from Toyota for 36 months. It met all my needs and then some. A range of 260-340 miles depending on how you drive (I’ve been getting over 300 on the highway between Palo Alto and Monterey, less around Palo Alto). Fit and finish: picture a Camry loaded like a Lexus and swathed in cameras and radar providing a plethora of driver assistance systems (but sadly it won’t take over if you fall asleep). Tons of heat in cold weather with no impact at all on range because fuel cells are intermediate in efficiency between ICEs and BEVs.

      Arguments based on energy efficiency are meaningless when energy capacity of a vehicle is ignored. Comparing a Tesla 85, a Mirai with a 5 kg 700 MPa hydrogen tank, and a Camry with a 17-gallon gasoline tank, the respective energy capacities in kWh are

      Tesla: 85
      Mirai: 197
      Camry: 611

      These numbers directly reflect the respective volumetric energy densities (see the Wikipedia article on that topic) in MJ/L of batteries (2.56 for Tesla’s Panasonic NCR18650B batteries), hydrogen (5.6 at 70 MPa), and gasoline (34.2).

      If BEVs weren’t substantially more efficient than FCEVs and ICEs in using their tiny allotment of energy no one would take them seriously!

      One often neglected price paid for efficiency is little or no cogeneration (see the Wikipedia article) capability, aka combined heat and power (CHP). Like Goldilocks’ three bears, ICEs have too much heat (once they’ve been started), BEVs have too little, and FCEVs have just the right amount for coping with cold weather.

      In cold weather ICEs are hard to start while BEVs lose battery capacity. FCEVs thrive in cold weather, starting very easily even at 40 below, keeping the fuel cell at optimum temperature and humidity with zero loss in range while keeping the occupants toasty warm.

      Arguments based on no hydrogen infrastructure overlook that within 30 miles of my home there are only three supercharger stations (San Mateo, Mountain View, and Fremont), vs. five hydrogen stations (South San Francisco, Hayward, San Jose, Saratoga, and Campbell) with as many scheduled to open in the next 12 months and with Sacramento funding rapid deployment of many more. The ratio of hydrogen stations to FCEVs on the road today is much higher than that of supercharger stations to Teslas on the road, and there is no sign of superchargers catching up in that regard. “Fool cells” are only as ridiculous today as the First Transcontinental Railroad was following the Civil War, without which I would not be driving between two Stanford campuses today.

      That said, the charging speed of Tesla’s superchargers, pegged by Tesla users at around “340 mph”, is certainly very practical, which the cheaper Model 3 will some day make even more so. But it takes me very close to 60 seconds to add 1 kg of H2 to my Mirai, which using the EPA’s figure of 312 miles with 5 kg of H2 comes to (312/5)*60 = 3744 mph or about Mach 5. Alert the FAA!

      Are BEVs less carbon intensive than FCEVs? I have no idea. My rooftop solar PV’s inverter claims to have reduced California’s CO2 emissions by 80 tons since installation. Do the math, tell me how much CO2 True Zero emits to make enough hydrogen for 50,000 miles at 62 miles/kg, then compare that with the 80 tons I’ve saved. Then take into account that it will likely be less than half that amount in the time it takes me to get to 50,000 miles.

      In the meantime I know for sure that I’m neither emitting the various carcinogens from an ICE tailpipe into my neighborhood nor dripping oil on my garage floor—I let the hydrogen makers do that to their neighborhood.

      For Musk to defend his BEV turf by attacking FCEVs while complaining about the Koch brothers defending their ICE turf by attacking BEVs is simply business as usual on Wall Street, or as it’s better known on Main Street, good old-fashioned hypocrisy. Different technologies serve different needs and anyone who thinks the world can get along just fine with only one or two of ICEs, BEVs and FCEVs has been conditioned by their chosen echo chamber.

      FCEVs suit my situation ideally but obviously not everyone is in my situation. For a quite different situation consider fleet owners wanting to keep their vehicles on the road 95% of the time. That requirement rules out BEVS (no one takes swappable batteries seriously after Tesla’s failed attempt), leaving FCEVs as the only practical option for those fleet owners wanting or needing to move off fossil fuels.

      Mix and match. Not to worry, no one’s about to go out of business anytime soon.