Tesla's Next Big Battle: Electric Cars vs. Hydrogen Cars

Watch stocks you care about

The single, easiest way to keep track of all the stocks that matter...

Your own personalized stock watchlist!

It's a 100% FREE Motley Fool service...

Click Here Now

When most people think of green cars, two companies immediately come to mind -- Tesla Motors (NASDAQ: TSLA  ) and Toyota (NYSE: TM  ) . Tesla's sleek electric vehicles fueled the stock's meteoric 340% rally over the past 12 months, while Toyota's Prius remains the best-selling hybrid vehicle on the market. However, Tesla and Toyota are also the top names to watch in a critical new battle over the future of green vehicles -- electric-powered vs. hydrogen-powered cars.

In the past, Tesla CEO Elon Musk has dismissed the idea of hydrogen power for vehicles. During a speech in Munich last October, Musk stated there was "no way" for hydrogen cells to be a "workable technology," and that it was "suitable for the upper stage of rockets, but not for cars." When Musk -- also the CEO of SpaceX -- talks about rockets, people listen.

Tesla's Model S. Source: Wikimedia Commons.

Yet major automakers like Toyota, Honda (NYSE: HMC  ) , and Hyundai have recently invested heavily in hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (FCVs) instead of electric ones. Last November, Toyota showcased its stunning concept FCV at the Toyota Motor Show in Tokyo and again at CES 2014 in Las Vegas in January. Two other FCVs -- Hyundai's Tucson SUV and Honda's FCX Clarity sedan -- are also scheduled to arrive soon.

Regardless of which technology represents the future, the battle for the future of green vehicles will start in Tesla's home state of California. California now requires at least 15% of all new vehicles sold in the state to produce zero emissions by 2025.

Toyota's FCV-R. Source: Wikimedia Commons.

So who's right -- Tesla or some of the biggest automakers in the world? Let's take a closer look at three key problems facing the adoption of both electric and hydrogen vehicles today.

Problem #1: The cost
The biggest hurdle in making green vehicles mainstream is the price. The average purchase price for light vehicles in America is currently a little less than $30,000, according to A new Toyota Prius currently costs $24,000 to $30,000.

The cheapest Tesla vehicle, the Model S, costs $85,000. A cheaper vehicle, codenamed BlueStar, could cost $40,000 when it arrives in 2016 or 2017. Customers can claim a maximum tax credit of $7,500 for each electric vehicle purchased. President Obama recently proposed boosting that limit to $10,000.

Toyota expects its hydrogen-powered FCV-R to cost a little less than $100,000 when it arrives in 2015. Although that's still a hefty price tag, it represents a huge discount from earlier fuel cell prototypes, which reportedly cost nearly $1 million to develop. Hydrogen-powered vehicles are eligible for federal tax credits up to $4,000 as "qualified light-duty fuel cell vehicles," but that limit could be lifted to the same level as electric cars as more hydrogen cars reach the market.

Problem #2: The infrastructure
The second main question on consumers' minds is the distance that these vehicles can travel on a single charge. The lack of a national infrastructure for electric charging and hydrogen fueling stations makes these vehicles impractical for long road trips outside certain regions.

There are currently 121,000 gas stations across America. Electric charging stations are quickly catching up with over 22,000 locations, a number that's growing rapidly because it's simple to set up these stations on top of existing power grids.

One of the broadest efforts was NRG Energy's (NYSE: NRG  ) eVgo, a $39 per month unlimited electric charging service, which was established via partnerships with gas stations, restaurants, and convenience stores. Each electric charging station is estimated to cost between $100,000 and $250,000 to install.

Hydrogen fueling (L) vs. electric charging (R). Source: Flickr, Wikimedia Commons.

Hydrogen fuel cells, however, are a different story. Since there's no pre-existing hydrogen cell infrastructure for most commercial or residential buildings, charging stations have to be built from the ground up at a whopping cost of approximately $2 million each. That's why there are only 55 hydrogen fueling stations in the U.S. -- most of them in Southern California -- even though the technology has been around since the dawn of the millenium.

Problem #3: Fuel efficiency
Infrastructure growth seems to definitely favor electric vehicles at the moment, but what about fueling costs compared to regular gasoline and hybrid vehicles? Electric charging services like eVgo charge monthly subscriptions for unlimited charging, so they might be the cheapest option if the owner travels a lot during the month.

But to get a better idea of where hydrogen cars stand, let's compare the cost efficiency of three vehicles -- an average, gas-powered 25 MPG vehicle, Toyota's Prius, and the hydrogen-powered Honda FCX Clarity, which can travel 67 miles per kilogram of hydrogen. Let's assume that water -- a radical new process -- was used to create the hydrogen at a discounted cost of $1.00 to $1.80 per kilogram.


Avg. car (25 MPG highway)

Toyota Prius (51 MPG highway)

Honda FCX Clarity (67 MPK highway)

Cost per 20 miles




Cost per 40 miles




Cost per 60 miles




Source: RTA fuel cost calculator, average fuel cost of $3.65, hydrogen price of $1.80.

Based on those numbers, it's easy to see why companies continue backing hydrogen as an alternative fuel source. More importantly, it shows that a $39 per month fee for unlimited electric charging might not be worth it after all -- by comparison, $39 in hydrogen could possibly fuel the Clarity for 1,400 to 1,500 miles. However, the cost of hydrogen production still varies widely -- using natural gas to produce hydrogen, for example, costs $3 to $4 per kilogram, nullifying the Clarity's advantage.

Regardless of the cost, hydrogen cars have one key advantage -- the fact that they can be refueled in three minutes, compared to an hour for Tesla's vehicles.

The tip of the green iceberg
In conclusion, I've only touched the tip of the iceberg in regards to green vehicles, but those three key problems -- cost, infrastructure, and fuel efficiency -- will remain the epicenter of the electric vs. hydrogen debate for years to come. What's your take, dear readers? Will hydrogen cars triumph over electric cars, or will neither one ever gain traction across the American auto market? Share your thoughts in the comments section below!

How can you discover the next Tesla?
The one sure way to get wealthy is to invest in a groundbreaking company -- like Tesla or Apple -- that goes on to dominate a multibillion-dollar industry. Our analysts have found multi-bagger stocks time and again. And now they think they've done it again with three stock picks that they believe could generate the same type of phenomenal returns. They've revealed these picks in a new free report that you can download instantly by clicking here now.


Read/Post Comments (77) | Recommend This Article (7)

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On April 16, 2014, at 9:29 AM, Albertico wrote:

    "The cheapest Tesla vehicle, the Model S, costs $85,000"

    The cheapest Tesla vehicle is the Model S, but quoted from their website starting price is $69,900 before Federal and State Tax incentives.

    Electric Fuel Efficiency in detail

    "$39 per month fee for unlimited electric charging"

    Most people "do not" charge their EVs using any charging stations but at home, at night, during off peak hours. The national average cost per kWh is $0.11 so here is a cost analysis for that using 20, 40 and 60 miles of refueling.

    Charging an 85kWh Tesla Model S battery with 265 miles range costs $9.35. Now, let's convert that to the 20, 40 and 60 miles running costs (cents rounded up)

    20 miles $.071

    40 miles $1.41

    60 miles $2.12

    This is of course using national average and not off peak night time electric costs which in some states could lead to lower cost per mile.

    I wonder how the hypothetical $1.80 running cost of hydrogen was come up with. I seem to recall Toyota mentioned when they spoke of their FCV that it would cost a bit more than that to refill.

    There is no actual mass market hydrogen refueling so is impossible to have an accurate number asides from our estimates. So far, electricity is much cheaper than gas and hybrids though

  • Report this Comment On April 16, 2014, at 9:43 AM, Supersyd wrote:

    No one has the nerve to address the main problem with hydrogen vehicles... who among us is sufficiently insane to drive around while sitting on top of a tank of hydrogen???!!! Anybody remember the Hindenburg??

  • Report this Comment On April 16, 2014, at 10:14 AM, TMFSunLion wrote:

    Thanks for reading, Albertico.

    To clarify the $85,000 price tag, I should have stated that price was for the 85 kWh model which could cost up to $85,000 ($79,900 + extras). Several other industry websites cite $85,000 figure as well:

    So I should have stated "up to $85,000". Thanks.

    Meanwhile, you make a good point about home charging. I should mention that as well next time.

  • Report this Comment On April 16, 2014, at 10:15 AM, TMFSunLion wrote:

    Thanks for reading, Albertico.

    To clarify the $85,000 price tag, I should have stated that price was for the 85 kWh model which could cost up to $85,000 ($79,900 + extras). Several other industry websites cite $85,000 figure as well:

    So I should have stated "up to $85,000". Thanks.

    Meanwhile, you make a good point about home charging. I should mention that as well next time.

  • Report this Comment On April 16, 2014, at 10:40 AM, drax7 wrote:

    So much misinformation

    I suggest you go back and study and read and learn, you are a disservice to the investor.

  • Report this Comment On April 16, 2014, at 10:58 AM, aussie6jack37 wrote:

    The discussion for alternative powered autos is to wean USA off fossil fuels. According to the EIA, the USA generates 68% of its electricity from fossil fuels. When demand rises for the more efficient electric vehicles then price per kilowatt will also increase negating the reason for switching in the first place.

    Hydrogen fuel cells is the only 'green' option but grid parity is currently a fantasy pipe dream and there is also that safety aspect.

    Energy independence is within grasp and fossil fuels will continue to greed us into the promise land.

    excerpt EIA website

    In 2012, the United States generated about 4,054 billion kilowatthours of electricity. About 68% of the electricity generated was from fossil fuel (coal, natural gas, and petroleum), with 37% attributed from coal.

    Energy sources and percent share of total electricity generation in 2012 were:

    Coal 37%

    Natural Gas 30%

    Nuclear 19%

    Hydropower 7%

    Other Renewable 5%

    Biomass 1.42%

    Geothermal 0.41%

    Solar 0.11%

    Wind 3.46%

    Petroleum 1%

    Other Gases < 1%

  • Report this Comment On April 16, 2014, at 11:55 AM, eds727 wrote:

    Love these coal-powered cars. Until we have replaced all coal-powered electricity generating plants, adding more electric powered devices just prolongs the use of coal to generate electricity.

  • Report this Comment On April 16, 2014, at 12:07 PM, LikeTesla wrote:

    I power my Tesla Model S with Solar Power. After adding enough array size to more than power my home I expanded the array an additional amount ..., enough to provide 110 miles/day of Tesla EV driving.

    Coal Powered :-)?

    If I bought a $100,000 FCV it would remain parked in my driveway and I could use it for a planter!! No refueling stations anywhere close if any in the state. Guessing won't be any for the next 10 - 20 years if then :-)! Really tough choice Tesla or Flower Pot?

  • Report this Comment On April 16, 2014, at 12:11 PM, MikePowers wrote:

    Infrastructure is hydrogen's main drawback, although many existing gas stations could probably be retrofitted with a few pumps for far less then the $2M quoted cost of a new station. But only a small percentage of those would be built to make hydrogen onsite. The remaining would still depend upon transported fuel costs via tanker truck and/or rail.

    Electric takes advantage of an infrastructure that is already in place, be it in need of upgrading here and there, and even allows any consumers to refuel from home at lower costs.

    Again, the argument comes back to battery technology advancements. Once we have a battery pack that can be recharged at 80% in 3-5 mins, provide a range of about 250-300 miles, last 7-10 years and able to be swapped out for recycling / refurbishment and for credit toward a new pack then we've solved it for the majority of light vehicle drivers. We're close to almost all of these aspects.

    Let hydrogen or natural gas be the fuel of choice for medium & heavy duty trucks.

  • Report this Comment On April 16, 2014, at 12:14 PM, JRUwing wrote:

    Thanks for the article Leo. I was just wondering why you left out affordable electric cars like the Nissan Leaf, Ford Focus EV and the Smart EV? It is a really tough comparison as hydrogen cars are not really available to buy and won't be for a quite a while. Special leasing programs to test cars is not attractive for most. Electric is so far ahead, it is really difficult to make an argument for hydrogen. As batteries improve, the gap just gets wider. Charging infrastructure, home charging with solar, again hydrogen will not be able to compete. These major companies have these vehicles as R&D projects and that is it.

  • Report this Comment On April 16, 2014, at 12:15 PM, LikeTesla wrote:

    Fact is Electric Power Plants will get greener before your apt to have wide spread refueling for FCV's!!

    Also from what I understand ..., conversion process that creates fuel for the FCV's is not carbon free process!! Have to say you do have the advantage that you can still keep paying someone for your fuel :-). What might be good would be a rapid adoption of Fuel Cells to power homes so that when used in combination with Solar a home owner could/would be both very green and independent of the grid except to push power onto grid. Distributed Power with Solar is good but add Fuel Cell into the mix and it gets even better according to my research. Fuel Cell power plant for home is much more efficient than power sent across the grid from current power plants!! Seems like a better application. Also already being tested in Japan and commercially in the US.

  • Report this Comment On April 16, 2014, at 12:34 PM, CrazyDocAl wrote:

    Hydrogen has an advantage, natural gas. Not just because it's the main source for hydrogen but because of another industry trend. What most people don't know (yet) is that there are trucks hauling liquified natural gas to customer's sites. Unlike propane NG takes a lot to be liquified yet it's now feasible and profitable.

    What this means for hydrogen is gas stations can be set up overnight. A simple station can be set up using trailers.

  • Report this Comment On April 16, 2014, at 12:52 PM, keithdude wrote:

    I would like to offer a couple of clarifications to the article. Dislcosure: I work for the California Fuel Cell Partnership, a public-private partnership that includes government agencies at all levels, automakers, fuel producers, fuel cell manufacturers, universities, NGOs, transit agencies and others.


    Neither Toyota nor Honda has stated a sales price for the fuel cell electric vehicles they will sell in 2015. Hyundai will begin leasing in 2014 and prices can be found on their web page.

    The article should have also mentioned the California rebates that are available to zero and low-emission vehicles that can run as high as $2,500.


    Because the market for fuel cell electric vehicles will launch in California, an understanding of the hydrogen fueling network is important. Last year's signing of Assembly Bill 8 provides cost-share funding for at least 100 stations.

    Research by CaFCP's partners shows that 68 strategically located stations can launch the market and that, at 100, there will be enough confidence in the market that future funding will be assumed by the private sector. If you would like to learn more, readers can visit our website and read The California Road Map.

    This article mentions 55 stations. I can't be sure where the author found this number; perhaps he combines the number of public (open to anyone) and private stations across the U.S. DOE's Alternative Fuels Data Center references only the 10 public stations across the country.

    It's best to look at the number of stations in California because this is where the market will launch. The California Fuel Cell Partnership has a Google map of public stations that are operational or in development as well as a private stations.

    In the very near future, additional public stations will be added to this map, based on a soon-to-be release funding announcement from the California Energy Commission.

    More information about the California market launch for fuel cell electric vehicles can be found at the California Fuel Cell Partnership website.

  • Report this Comment On April 16, 2014, at 12:57 PM, MikePowers wrote:

    Electrons will always be cheaper and more efficient to transport compared to hydrogen or natural gas.

    We should be thinking about offering embedded inductive charging in existing mall or street parking spots for topping off. Leave full charging stations for home or at highway rest stops.

    This would allow for the closing down or the re-purposing of most gas stations as car washes and/or mini-marts...wait isn't that already true?

    Leave fuel cell, natural gas & renewable tech for running homes, businesses, medium/heavy trucks and the majority of the non-mobile power grid.

  • Report this Comment On April 16, 2014, at 12:57 PM, uncletom wrote:

    I just have to get in here...LikeTesla hit a home run with combining solor and fuel Cells. Ford has a new car coming out with a solor roof that charges the fuel Cell while driving down the road. What we need is a paint job that collects energy from the sun and charges the fuel cell..

  • Report this Comment On April 16, 2014, at 1:08 PM, jpb999 wrote:

    I will stick with Elon Musk.

    The Hydrogen Fuel Cell built by Toyota requires 30 to 40 grams ol Platinum. Consider building 1.000.000 cars will require 30 to 40 metric tons of Platinum.

    Worldwide production is only 192 metric tons.

    It is rare it, is extremely expensive and the refueling will require an rediculus expensive infrastructure.

    And if you look into those fuelstation they are only capable to refuel up to 200 cars or 20 trucks a day.

    Why should we exchange the oil monopoly with a monopoly of Hydrogen it does not make sence.

  • Report this Comment On April 16, 2014, at 1:15 PM, MikePowers wrote:

    "UncleTom's" comments on solar cells embedded on the vehicle itself for topping off charge is also a great example of where the technology is headed. This would reduce the need for the number of public inductive charging parking spots, if not eliminate the need all together.

    Once again, if battery technology gets to the point of providing 70-80% charge in 3-5 mins with a 200-250 mile range that would satisfy 95% of light duty vehicle drivers' needs.

    Elon Musk's proposed battery plant will reduce the cost of batteries, which is 60-70% of the price of an EV today, thus reducing the overall vehicle cost.

  • Report this Comment On April 16, 2014, at 1:16 PM, StellarNews wrote:

    This article totally misses the biggest point in favor of electric vehicles! You can "fuel" them at home, in your garage! I'd be willing to bet 90% of the electric vehicle fueling is done in the owners garage. So, not only is the infrastructure easier to install outside of the home, most the fueling infrastructure is already in place for electrics. The only people that would need to use commercial charging on a regular basis for an electric are people that live in apartments or take long trips on a regular basis.

  • Report this Comment On April 16, 2014, at 1:22 PM, ZacNoski wrote:

    Infrastructure and cost leave hydrogen powered vehicles at an extreme disadvantage. Elon Musk, in partnership with Panasonic (potentially Apple), plans to build a $5 billion "Gigafactory" that would outproduce the entire world in terms of the lithium batteries used to power Tesla and other automakers electric/hybrid vehicles. Having direct control over battery production will lead to increased advancements in size, capacity, charge time and (most importantly) price.

    When the price of the batteries decreases so then will the price of the cars that use them, subsequently making the $30,000 average car price a more realistic goal in attempt to mainstream the electric cars.

    Fueling stations are even more vital in the hydrogen vs electric debate. With 22,000 current electric charging stations across the country and a relatively low marginal cost of building new ones at $100,000-$250,000 per it is more practical to tend towards electric rather than dropping roughly $2 million to produce hydrogen stations. With the cost of building the stations coupled with the fact that only 55 stations, mainly in South California, hydrogen once again stands at a heavy disadvantage.

    Finally is the fuel efficiency aspect. Consider the aforementioned reality of Elon Musk taking Tesla's fate into his own hands by investing in the "Gigafactory;" that would mean that vehicles that ran off of the batteries will experience improved fuel efficiency per charge with direct relation to the batteries' advancements. Also, electric is a well-based and understood resource that is also continuously being improved upon as we ween off of coal and other fossil fuels/natural gases and increasingly adopt renewable energy sources.

    Once again hydrogen stands at a disadvantage. "The cost of hydrogen production still varies widely..." That statement alone stands to show that hydrogen knowledge/understanding still needs to be worked upon. Ultimately there must exist a process is both a practical and applicable approach to production that will provide a more uniform price point for the fuel source.

    Price of the electric cars will decrease as battery developments occur. There are already a good number of electric charging stations (22,000) across the country with a reasonable marginal cost for increased infrastructure ($100,000-$250,000). Electricity is a well understood resource with continuous advancements in the processes used to produce it, therefore keeping it at a moderate price as a fuel source.

    Hydrogen cars are even more expensive than electric cars. There are only 55 charging stations across the country, most of the mare in Southern California. Hydrogen production is highly diversified with no true practical or applicable approach to making it available to the masses as a fuel source at a set price point.

    Overall, electric may have some competition from hydrogen, but it will not be enough to truly slow the adoption of electric vehicles as they continue to advance and become evermore practical.

  • Report this Comment On April 16, 2014, at 1:23 PM, jeffhre wrote:

    "Until we have replaced all coal-powered electricity generating plants, adding more electric powered devices just prolongs the use of coal to generate electricity."

    eds727, good point, and until then I suppose we'll just continue using coal power to refine, sell and pump gasoline into our cars.

    Oh wait, if you just looked at the post above yours, would have seen that the percentage of electricity from coal has already fallen dramatically. I will also suggest that what will prolong the use of coal powered generating plants is that coals supporters with vested interests continue to advocate it's use, not consumer demand as suggested.

    This is evidenced by coals lower percentage of use despite decades of fluctuating demand. Funny how some akin to Rip Van Winkel, wake up spouting thoughts from lovely dreams of the 1970s, yet they take no notice of current facts on the ground.

    About 35% of Tesla drivers in California are deploying solar panels as in LikeTesla's example, who states, "I power my Tesla Model S with Solar Power...Coal Powered :-)?"

  • Report this Comment On April 16, 2014, at 1:24 PM, TMFSunLion wrote:

    In response to the 55 hydrogen stations, they include both public and private:

  • Report this Comment On April 16, 2014, at 1:30 PM, HydroMoto wrote:

    "Infrastructure" is just an excuse to not commit to HFCV's. If I had a choice between a Nissan Leaf and a similar priced fuel cell vehicle, I'd choose the FCV.

    The future is HFCV's, not batteries, even if they are charged by solar. A home based HFC, powered by solar (or even Natural gas) can refill your car and run your home.

    The notion of delivering hydrogen to a gas station is laughable - the Hydrogen needs to be produced on site.

    My bet is, Tesla could easily adjust and adopt HFVC technology if and when needed.

    BTW, hydrogen and HFC - is one big battery - a way better battery than what EV's have today.

    Right now Honda has a home hydrogen fueling station which like an EV's refills your car in your garage.

    Has anyone thought long term about the natural resources it takes to produce a conventional battery. It is not green, it is not efficient, it is not clean. It is not even sustainable. Hydrogen production is a battery alternative that can be all of these things.

    Hydrogen fuel is our future, the quicker we embrace it, the better.

  • Report this Comment On April 16, 2014, at 1:41 PM, TMFSunLion wrote:

    @JRUWing -- You are right, I should have included Nissan's LEAF. $30000 ($21000 - $22000 subsidized) is definitely a great deal. Will definitely discuss it in future articles about Tesla.

  • Report this Comment On April 16, 2014, at 1:47 PM, TMFSunLion wrote:

    For those interested in the new water to hydrogen calculation of $1.80/kg, this summary explains it:

    However, using natural gas (the traditional way) generally costs $3 to $4 per kg.

  • Report this Comment On April 16, 2014, at 1:52 PM, jeffhre wrote:

    Hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles are one form of providing propulsion power for EV's. Automakers have put a great deal of development resources into them, since they represent a less risky continuation of their familiar business model than battery electric vehicles.

    Each is at a disadvantage to gasoline powered cars in a world looking for low carbon propulsion solutions.

    Regarding the article a few quibbles basically of limited consequence with Mr. Suns facts regarding Tesla pricing, and charging at home for example, have arisen. One comment noted is that less expensive vehicles were not included as part of the article thesis. That is a worthy topic for exploration, IMO.

    However, this article, titled "Tesla's Next Big Battle: Electric Cars vs. Hydrogen Cars" fails to show a nexus between the planned introduction of FCEV's and any competition that will pressure Tesla's business model.

    Perhaps the title was chosen by TMF editors, in any case, if this article is viewed as an analysis of the ad hoc thesis presented by the title choice (controversy generating?), the article does not show a pathway that FCEV makers would use to challenge either gasoline powered vehicles or Tesla as a maker of BEVs.

    There is an implicit assumption that simply introducing FCEVs in unkown volumes, with unknown purchase and pricing options and unknown fueling (again with no known pricing and location options) creates a competitor to Tesla's BEV manufacturing, sales and recharging business model.

  • Report this Comment On April 16, 2014, at 2:05 PM, jeffhre wrote:

    HydroMoto, batteries are used in all cars manufactured today and a often noted as the most recycled items in technological history.

    Please feel free to invest (today?) in an onsite hydrogen making facility and let us know about the costs with respect to gasoline! I won't insult you with comparing costs of using three times as much energy required to create, compress, store, and pump hydrogen rather than using the electricity to run an EV. Since it is widespread knowledge that using electricity is already about three times cheaper than covering the same miles with an electric motor.

    Hope to hear from you soon on your progress :) and happy motoring!

  • Report this Comment On April 16, 2014, at 2:09 PM, jeffhre wrote:

    Hi Leo,

    One problem with that citation, these fellas don't actually MAKE hydrogen using that process. But they do assume to be able to USE it at that price?

    "For those interested in the new water to hydrogen calculation of $1.80/kg, this summary explains it:

    However, using natural gas (the traditional way) generally costs $3 to $4 per kg."

    There may be a wee bit of information missing on the pathway for getting from here - to there :)

  • Report this Comment On April 16, 2014, at 2:19 PM, uncletom wrote:

    We seam to all agree that electric is the future of automobiles. However...At the same time we need to upgrade the grid with more advanced " GREEN" alternatives while reducing the energy needed in our homes and businesses. We are off to a great start! We need to invest in the best technologies to better our selfs and our children now and in the future at the same time making "OUR" invironment safe and clean!

    Hydrogen Fuel Cells contain Platinum. This is a rare mineral in the U.S. We don't need to be dependent on other countries for that "to". By investing in American companies for "OUR" needs. We will build a stronger infrastructure, create jobs and wealth.

    Teslas, Elon Musk is starting the movement. I just hope that he keeps his ventures mostly on American soil!!

    I wish I had a million $ to invest in American entrepreneurs that are hard working and want to build a better America in America for Americas families!!

  • Report this Comment On April 16, 2014, at 3:06 PM, DHammer12 wrote:

    Fuel Cell Vehicles (FCV's) will still use batteries and the fuel cell will be the range extender. The cost to produce the fuel cell is expected to drop radically in the next few years due to cheaper materials available. Gas Stations can be quickly converted to Hydrogen Stations by using Ammonia as the bulk fuel and converting (by reforming) this fuel to clean hydrogen. When Ammonia Fuel Cells arrive, the Gas Stations will only need to sell Ammonia. By using Ammonia, high pressure storage tanks will not be needed on FCV Vehicles. A difficulty (along with charge time and battery weight) with an all electric vehicle is depreciation of the vehicle value due to battery performance depreciation. It is a good thing that both EV's and FCV's will compete for the auto market place as costs for these technologies will ramp down quickly.

  • Report this Comment On April 16, 2014, at 3:07 PM, HydroMoto wrote:

    @ jeffhre, why the vitriol?!

    If I use solar or wind power to create my Hydrogen, then the 3x's the energy to make is irrelevant.

    Hydrogen in an HFC is a battery yes? - Today we have fuel cell technology which does not use Platinum.

    One day the HVC will be a cheaper, greener, cleaner option as to current battery technology.

    Now if we could replace batteries with a viable ultracapacitor (something Elon Musk proposes), then I'd say no to hydrogen - but to stick with using thousands of little batteries in a car, its not a long term option.

    You may say batteries are recyclable, but hydrogen is renewable.

    BTW, 0% of the lithium used in batteries today's is recycled, it cost 5x as much to recycle the lithium as it does to produce it. Yes, lead acid batteries are recycled, the cobalt in lithium-ion batteries is recycled, the lithium is not, with the majority of it ending up in concrete slurry.

    Hydrogen is something we really should be using in the home market, building gas stations is a long term proposition. For now, we should have HFC's in our garages.

    Some folk, have a hundred or so lead acid batteries in their garage, linked to solar panels on their roof. This is a workable option for going off the grid. A better long term solution is to create hydrogen, store it, and use it for your energy purposes. It is a much cleaner, greener and solution.

  • Report this Comment On April 16, 2014, at 3:29 PM, dwdodson wrote:

    The notion that there are only 22,000 electric charging stations is a very misleading to an investor considering the potential viability of an electric car industry.

    The fact is that there is a greater than 1 to 1 relationship of chargers to electric cars. Every single car has a charger in its garage. For EV owners with range over 100 miles (Tesla) this effectively means they don't need 3rd party chargers at all. Only on long distance trips which are accommodated by a relatively small number of Superchargers.

    Furthermore, every single 110 outlet in America is a potential charging station. Many of us find regular outlets at parking garages and on the sides of buildings just to top off.

    It's simply NOT true that the charger network is an impediment. The fact is that there are far more charging opportunities for EVs than there are gas stations.

  • Report this Comment On April 16, 2014, at 3:48 PM, ffbj wrote:

    In the 1960's Hydrogen was touted as the fuel of the future. Well it's the future now, as least by any reasonable estimation of what they were saying back in the sixties, and Hydrogen is still the fuel of the future. It's for niche markets like Iceland, where due to a number of factors, it was a logical choice to set up a Hydrogen fueling infrastructure there.

    Ev's are still the most practical alternative choice of motivation for most applications.

  • Report this Comment On April 16, 2014, at 4:13 PM, fmulk9 wrote:

    I took an old forklift engine and put it into my 87 chevy S10 and built a hydrogen fuel cell system for under $2,000 and refuel the vehicle each night in my garage with a hydrogen generator and store it in a compression cylinder for fast fueling. It got me from Florida to Massachusetts refueling 2 times with a generator hooked up to a small lawn tractor battery. I averages 65 miles an hour getting up there, and on a full charged fuel cell get almost 400 miles before refueling. total cost of the trip in fuel was less than $12. Hydrogen is the way to go and you can all do it yourself and let the Car Manufacturers and their pass on costs go to hell

  • Report this Comment On April 16, 2014, at 4:24 PM, PeakOilBill wrote:

    The only practical way to produce hydrogen in the vast quantity needed in transportation is from natural gas. It is a FINITE fossil fuel which will be in short supply a hell of a lot sooner than most people realize because of its low cost and low air pollution. Making hydrogen from gas wastes a lot of the energy in the gas. Any gas has low energy density compared to a liquid fuel. It takes a huge amount of natural gas to push a car as far as a gallon of gasoline can. You can charge an electric car anywhere there is electricity, which is nearly everywhere. Peak oil is real. Only oil from Iraq is preventing it from being felt already. We are in the final years of the petroleum age - an age of abundance sustained by VERY cheap, abundant energy from crude oil. Visit 'our finite world' dot com and read some of Gail's articles. Financial problems will screw up the economy long before the really serious oil shortage hits. The banking system can't function for long if the global economy is forced into contraction by an oil shortage. Then you don't have the resources to produce more and more expensive oil, and you're screwed.

  • Report this Comment On April 16, 2014, at 4:26 PM, jsainio wrote:

    The $1/kg cost of H2 appears to be at 100% efficiency. If travel were 100% efficient, cars would not need hydrogen, or any other fuel. A large inefficiency is the energy needed to compress or liquify the hydrogen for storage. For instance, liquid hydrogen, the densest, requires 19.8KWH per kilo, more than half the energy of the fuel.

    And remember, liquid hydrogen has a density of only .07, so plan on a BIG gas tank.

  • Report this Comment On April 16, 2014, at 4:30 PM, RHO1953 wrote:

    Supersyd, the Tesla is probably more dangerous than any hydrogen vehicle. When hydrogen is released it immediately rises and dissipates. Any fire or explosion would be short lived. Your Tesla is carrying enough electrical energy to turn you into a charcoal briquette in a fraction of a second. What happens if it goes into the water? An electrical short could be a catastrophe. I would take my chances with the hydrogen, it will prevail over the long run. It will be cheaper and quicker to refuel. Electric rechargeable cars are a shortcut with massive limitations. They will disappear over time. Given the choice the public will choose "other than electric".

  • Report this Comment On April 16, 2014, at 4:37 PM, jeffhre wrote:

    @ jeffhre, why the vitriol?!

    If I use solar or wind power to create my Hydrogen, then the 3x's the energy to make is irrelevant.

    My bad. You are correct. So when will we see the results pf that hydrogen production plant. (that might be sarcasm, or if it actually is feasible a fun challenge) People with good intentions often say, why spend money on BEVs when HFCEVs will soon replace them.

    I that any process that has an energy requirement three times higher than competitors has never failed to fail in the past. That means that any process that used 3 times the energy of competitors was a dead end. I don't see the next 5 years morphing into a new form of economic/entropic miracle endpoint.

    Talking up dead ends offers a serious disservice that amounts to more damage than, "so what it requires three times more energy."

    If you are willing to go into your back yard and install three times as many solar panels as an equivalent BEV user, build servicing equipment that will process, store, compress and pump hydrogen, today, into your HFCEV, then clearly I will sincerely apologize putting down a solution that works for you.

  • Report this Comment On April 16, 2014, at 4:44 PM, speculawyer wrote:

    LOL. Ask any engineer/scientist that has seriously compared the two. Fuel Cell vehicles are interesting whiz-bang technology but they are just not economically feasible due to:

    1) Fuel Cell stacks are expensive.

    2) There is no hydrogen infrastructure.

    3) There is no natural source of hydrogen so it all must be manufactured.

    4) Hydrogen is not as cheap as electricity.

    5) You can refuel at home.

    Hydrogen is nice in that you can have good range and refuel fast . . . but you can accomplish that with a plug-in hybrid at half the cost.

  • Report this Comment On April 16, 2014, at 4:50 PM, speculawyer wrote:

    "if battery technology gets to the point of providing 70-80% charge in 3-5 mins with a 200-250 mile range that would satisfy 95% of light duty vehicle drivers' needs."

    You do NOT need that. With an EV, you recharge at home and wake up to a full tank every morning. So you don't need 5 minutes charges. Mp3s have crappy quality compared to CDs but people adopted them. Cell phones have crappy quality compared to land lines but people adopted them (like crazy). You need to consider the advantages of EVs like charge up at home every night, quiet, clean, low maintenance, extremely cheap to fuel, grow your own fuel with PV panels, no oil changes, etc.

  • Report this Comment On April 16, 2014, at 5:04 PM, fmulk9 wrote:

    Has anyone seen the cost of Electricity? It`s not cheap and it`s still made with fossil fuels, check your bill and see what the fuel charge is. Hydrogen can be made anywhere all you need is stainless steel water and a battery. Now tell me which will be cheaper in the future?

  • Report this Comment On April 16, 2014, at 5:28 PM, DrG wrote:

    $100k with a $4k rebate. I'll rush right out to get one. Electric car production leaves a big carbon footprint. Still glad they are moving away from fossil fuels to electric or hydrogen cars How about solar powered??

  • Report this Comment On April 16, 2014, at 5:53 PM, nomadd22 wrote:

    To give you an idea of how nonsensical and phony the hydrogen article is, they use electrical costs of $.03 kwh for producing hydrogen but electrical cost of $.16 kwh to charge a Tesla. Using electricity to produce hydrogen and then converting that hydrogen back to electricity will never likely be more than 25% efficient, where charging a battery and using that power to run the car directly is already over 90% efficient. The lack of potential for hydrogen fuel cells to be a real player isn't just an opinion. It's based in very simple math.

  • Report this Comment On April 16, 2014, at 6:16 PM, jeffhre wrote:

    fmulk9, electricity averages about $.12 per kWh in the US. Which is more expensive today, electricity or hydrogen?

    "Hydrogen can be made anywhere all you need is stainless steel water and a battery." To make electricity all you need is a hand crank and a wire, I don't think that will be economically viable any time soon either.

  • Report this Comment On April 16, 2014, at 6:26 PM, YeahItsMe72 wrote:

    Hydrogen is not an energy source. There are not vast reserves of untapped hydrogen like there was for crude oil.

    You have to extract hydrogen via a chemical process that requires energy to make it happen.

    Right now the electricity required to extract enough hydrogen to power a hydrogen powered car 100 miles is more electricity than you'd need to power a similar sized/weight electric car the same distance.

    Since electricity is easily produced from wind and solar sources it's easy to make your electric car more green to operate by including some green sourced electricity.

    Hydrogen will cost more, will use the energy we have less efficiently, and will require a massive infrastructure to launch. Musk was able to launch Tesla because the only infrastructure as large as the oil industries infrastructure was the electric companies infrastructure. Building an all new infrastructure from scratch would cost billions.

  • Report this Comment On April 16, 2014, at 7:55 PM, Mentallect wrote:

    Tesla is a forward thinking company. It's studying fuel cells like other advanced tech automaker, but right now FC are not viable, but Tesla will lead the way if it makes sense economically in the near future. Elon Musk can lead the way.

  • Report this Comment On April 16, 2014, at 8:30 PM, Martinruss12 wrote:

    Don't worry if you are sitting on top hydrogen tank, we are the manufacturer it will be safe..

    Worry only if TEA BAGGERS did the hydrogen tank because it will explode & you will not be able to find your head off.

  • Report this Comment On April 16, 2014, at 9:41 PM, luckyagain wrote:

    Almost everyone makes the argument that it has to be EV or FCV exclusively. My guess is it will be a mix instead. No one technology has a huge advantage at the present time. EV is ahead right now and probably will be so for several years. A FCV that runs on natural gas would be much better than one that runs on hydrogen for the simple reason that producing hydrogen is too costly due to the cost of the infrastructure. Neither of these technologies will challenge gasoline/diesel any time soon. The transition will take many years.

  • Report this Comment On April 16, 2014, at 9:49 PM, solutiontogolf wrote:

    If it's so easy to get hydrogen from sea water, why are we doing all the fracking??? The comment above says it takes 3 gallons of water to create 1 kg of hydrogen = 1 gallon of gas. USE SEAWATER TO CREATE HYDROGEN??? search this on the web

  • Report this Comment On April 16, 2014, at 10:03 PM, speculawyer wrote:

    fmulk9 . . . that is absolutely the dumbest thing I've read today. Congrats!

  • Report this Comment On April 16, 2014, at 11:00 PM, Rotomoley wrote:

    No competition here. Hydrogen is way over hyped. Not necessarily clean, no infrastructure, extremely dangerous because the flame is invisible (hard to fight what you can't see), stored in ultra high pressure vessels - any leak is self combusting and any rupture would obliterate an entire intersection probably due to sudden release and 4000 degree flame temperature - melts steel and may combust aluminum, much more complicated that Li electric therefore higher chance of problems. Invest if you like. Not me!

  • Report this Comment On April 17, 2014, at 12:58 AM, Petronilus wrote:

    EV is going to win as battery cost is dropping.

    1. Hydrogen isn't available at home and doesn't come out of your solar panels. Buyers of green cars are the same consumers as those wanting solar panels on their roof. Electricity is everywhere. Even every gas station has electricity coming to it from the electric grid. Hydrogen is pretty much nowhere.

    2. it's much less efficient form of transportation than pure EV, as electrolysis of hydrogen from water involving electricity is a lossy process. Hydrogen really is just a state of storing the energy.

    3. Hydrogen powered engines are more complex with potential more service cost involved.

    4. EV drivetrains with high capacity batteries can provide excellent peak power for very fast acceleration (check Tesla Model S).

  • Report this Comment On April 17, 2014, at 2:46 AM, ocpw wrote:

    The turning point for cheaper hydrogen is inextricably linked to cheaper solar photovoltaic cells. And the reverse is true as well. In the past analysts have formulated the payback period for PV panels based upon electricity generation only. Factor in hydrogen generated from PV cells (at $3 per kilogram) replacing gasoline for cars at over $4 a gallon and the payback is nearly instantaneous. And impervious to price manipulation or "seasonal" price hikes.

  • Report this Comment On April 17, 2014, at 2:46 AM, scotttilly wrote:

    Cost comparison is completely wrong as you can charge a Tesla for free using a supercharger. 50% charge in twenty minutes and by the end of 2015 they will have 98% of the North American population cover when hydrogen cars will just be coming out. Tesla all the way.

  • Report this Comment On April 17, 2014, at 6:25 AM, greenknight32 wrote:

    In 2011, Northwestern University researchers developed a graphene-silicon anode for li-ion cells that allow them to store 10 times as much energy and charge 10 times as fast. A startup called SiNode Systems was spun off to develop the production systems to commercialize the technology, and they're well on their way to doing so.

    Once batteries like that become available, we won't be having these discussions any more.

  • Report this Comment On April 17, 2014, at 10:07 AM, mikeswendrowski wrote:

    Two thirds of the worlds oceans are made of Hydrogen, talk about a limitless supply!

    My Point, we live on a "Water World" not a "Lithium World".


  • Report this Comment On April 17, 2014, at 10:21 AM, 440hz wrote:

    I'm a big fan of cars and also a tree hugger.

    I was thrilled when I heard the news about the FCX clarity years ago. But immediately, I was frustrated after learning that it takes considerable amount of energy to charge up a fuel cell.

    When the Tesla roadster came out, I was kind of excited, but assumed that the rage was possible since it was based on the super lightweight lotus. When Tesla brought the Model S, it definitely seemed like the best solution to pollution from cars.

    With hydrogen charging stations costing a fortune to build and the great amount of energy they use, I think we need to consider whether they will be feasible for private businesses to operate without government support. It's been some time since I first heard about the FCX clarity and thus a long time since I researched the fuel cell technology, but with such high installation prices and energy consumption, Hydrogen does not seem like a competitor for electric. We need to keep in mind that a hydrogen charge station does not just 'pour' water into cars. It needs electricity to charge the cells just as in the case of charge EVs.

    I'm sure the blokes at Toyota or Honda are a lot smarter than me and they know what they're doing. But I think we still have to see how the two solutions actual work out in the real world when subsidies start to draw back.

  • Report this Comment On April 17, 2014, at 10:34 AM, ckgod wrote:

    Infrastructure of course is the biggest challenge. It can stay a compliance vehicle but not main stream transportation. Even the compliance part is questionable. Eventually green minded people will realize hydrogen is still generated by fossil fuel and contributes to the carbon foot print. It will remain that way in the foreseeable future whereas more and more electricity will be generated by renewable energy.

  • Report this Comment On April 17, 2014, at 10:41 AM, sabebrush6 wrote:

    Hydrogen power: Should you become a blonde for the day and forget to fuel up, your vehicle will have to be towed to the nearest ( could be 50 miles) hydrogen charging station. No gas can allowed here.

  • Report this Comment On April 17, 2014, at 12:01 PM, brewmenn wrote:

    First, it should be noted that hydrogen fuel cell cars ARE electric cars. The fuel cell makes electricity which is fed to motors to make the car go, just as batteries feed electricity to motors in a conventional electric car. So what we're really talking about it how to store energy in the vehicle, as hydrogen in a pressurized tank, or in a chemical battery.

    A few issues:

    Safety: I laugh when, inevitably someone brings up the Hindenburg as an example of the dangers of hydrogen. About a third of the people on board died (35), and only one on the ground. Hydrogen is a very light element (the lightest) so when it is released into the atmosphere it goes up and dissipates quickly. The fire goes up, leaving the surrounding area unharmed. Contrast that with what happened in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, where a trail carrying crude oil derailed and the fire destroyed half the town and killed 47.

    The only thing that makes hydrogen dangerous is that to store enough to power a vehicle is that it needs to be under pressure.

    If we didn't already have gasoline powered cars and tried to introduce them now, everyone would be up in arms over the safety aspect.

    And batteries carry their own safety hazards. They can catch fire, and they may be still energized after a crash and pose a safety hazard to first responders.

    So there is no clear cut answer as to which is the safest.

  • Report this Comment On April 17, 2014, at 12:15 PM, brewmenn wrote:


    Sure, there are few hydrogen refueling stations and many electrical outlets. But there were no gas stations when they started making gasoline powered cars either. You bought your gas in a can from the store. The first generation of fuel cell vehicles would be captured fleet vehicles, refueled at their home base. As the size and number of those fleets increase you would start to see remote fueling stations opening up, and once there was enough of those then the general public could start using them. It would be a long process, but it's been done before, and could be done again.

    And there would defiantly need to be infrastructure improvements to the existing power grid of we wanted to replace all of the vehicles currently on the road with electrics that needed recharging every day. Some places already have difficulty in the summer when everyone gets home from work and kicks on the AC and the TV. Image how much worse it would be if they also all plugged in their cars to recharge?

  • Report this Comment On April 17, 2014, at 12:22 PM, brewmenn wrote:


    Hydrogen can be made using electricity, so in that respect it's as "green" as any other electric powered device.

    I do not have figures for the "raw material to miles traveled" of either so I can't comment on the efficiency of either.

  • Report this Comment On April 17, 2014, at 12:41 PM, brewmenn wrote:

    The biggest issue is really the same one we've always known about: range and speed of refueling.

    Gasoline has a very high energy density. A gallon will take you many miles. and as a liquid at normal temperatures it's quick and easy to refuel.

    Neither chemical batteries nor hydrogen can match gasoline for energy density. Batteries are big and heavy so there's a diminishing return when trying to increase range. Hydrogen tanks are bulky and so tend to take up lots of space, requiring a larger vehicle, also leading to a diminishing return.

    In theory hydrogen vehicles could be refueled quickly, if there are stations available. Batteries suffer from the disadvantage of taking time to recharge.

    The winner will be the first to be able to travel 200-300 miles between refueling, and be able to refuel in under 15 minute at readily available refueling stations.

  • Report this Comment On April 17, 2014, at 12:52 PM, anindakumars wrote:

    HydroMoto - I agree to what you said. Long term Hydrogen based fuel cells trump electric vehicles. However, the main limitations would be product safety. Like another user pointed out, who'd like to drive on top of a tank filled with hydrogen. If gasoline burns in such cases does hydrogen explode?

    So given the current state of affairs, electric seems more viable and likely to stay so over hydrogen fuel cells in the short and medium term.

  • Report this Comment On April 17, 2014, at 2:17 PM, RustySlade wrote:

    I'm not sure anybody has mentioned the failure rate of Solid Oxide Fuel Cells (SOFC's) in the field.

    There is no way I would be the first adopter of fuel cell technology. . . I have personally tried to make LSM and YSZ stacks and can attest to the brittleness of the stacks. . . .

    I know people at Bloom Energy and they have failures in their stacks and those units are stationary

  • Report this Comment On April 17, 2014, at 4:02 PM, DWW12 wrote:

    "Let's assume that water -- a radical new process -- was used to create the hydrogen at a discounted cost of $1.00 to $1.80 per kilogram."

    What the heck is that? Let's assume? Really? Are you talking about electrolysis? Because if you are that price is pretty much fixed to your electricity cost and is not going anywhere unless electricity prices fall off a cliff. Did you do you research on how most (90%+) of hydrogen is made? It's from stripping hydrogen from nat gas. The cost per mile that way (cheapest available) is the same as gas, not cheaper, like BEV is. Did you look at the study in Hawaii where they used solar and electrolysis to power a HFC vehicle and bus? If you did and looked at how much energy it took to make the hydrogen to charge the vehicle you would see that if they had just charged a BEV they would have gone 3X as far. HFC is nice, but for a passenger vehicle that drives less than a hundred miles a day it is dumb.

  • Report this Comment On April 17, 2014, at 4:30 PM, DWW12 wrote:

    "For those interested in the new water to hydrogen calculation of $1.80/kg, this summary explains it:

    However, using natural gas (the traditional way) generally costs $3 to $4 per kg."

    Ha Ha Ha Ha. I see your pie in the sky method is relying on 3c/kwh off peak electricity. And the $1.80 is the cost to MAKE IT. Ha Ha Ha Ha. If I had 3c/kwhr electricity my Volt could go 40 miles on 36 cents. 1/3 the cost of the cheapest car in your list.

  • Report this Comment On April 17, 2014, at 5:59 PM, phillipzx3 wrote:

    In case nobody brought this to the attention of the author of this article...a car using a hydrogen fuel cell, IS an electric car. One uses batteries, the other uses a fuel cell.

    If someone can build a fuel celled car that can knock off a 2 second 0-60 time, please let me know. As of yet, they're as slow as slug at acceleration....unless, of course, you add some batteries. :-)

  • Report this Comment On April 17, 2014, at 6:04 PM, phillipzx3 wrote:

    "No one has the nerve to address the main problem with hydrogen vehicles... who among us is sufficiently insane to drive around while sitting on top of a tank of hydrogen???!!! Anybody remember the Hindenburg??"

    Although I'm not a fan of the fuel celled car, what you saw with the Hindenburg was not burning hydrogen, but burning diesel spilling to the ground.

  • Report this Comment On April 17, 2014, at 6:15 PM, phillipzx3 wrote:

    "Energy sources and percent share of total electricity generation in 2012 were:

    Coal 37%

    Natural Gas 30%

    Nuclear 19%

    Hydropower 7%

    Other Renewable 5%

    Biomass 1.42%

    Geothermal 0.41%


    These figures are severely misleading. On the west coast for instance...less than 2% of our electrical energy is generated via coal. 65% is generated from hydroelectric (Washington, Oregon and Idaho is ~ 80%. About 10% from wind farms, the remaining 10% split evenly between NG and the one remaining nuclear plant up the Columbia River 10 miles from Richland, Washinton ).

    So, while the nations figures for coal may be higher, the places where the vast majority of electric cars are being driven (the west coast) coal generated electricity is but a drop in the bucket.

  • Report this Comment On April 17, 2014, at 6:16 PM, ronwiserinvestor wrote:

    I make my own electricity to charge my EV at home, so I drive for free. You can't safely make hydrogen at home to fuel a Hydrogen powered vehicle so you will always be reliant on some hydrogen fueling station that will raise prices anytime they want.

    Why trade one addiction, "gasoline" for another addiction, "hydrogen":?

  • Report this Comment On April 17, 2014, at 7:30 PM, Jason87467 wrote:

    We don't have to worry about this controversy because Tesla will not be in business long enough to find out. People talk like Tesla is a giant company when they build less cars in a year that GM does in one day. Tesla has been running on media hype and I expect when the big companies start competing with these type of cars, Tesla will be looking for a buyer. The hand writing is on the wall.

  • Report this Comment On April 17, 2014, at 9:51 PM, fpl1954 wrote:

    Musk is correct. The hydrogen car will never be popular in the USA. It could work in city busses or Europe. Hydrogen is an excellent fuel, but is extremely low density. No passenger vehicle could fit more than 100 miles of hydrogen fuel. It's fine for city busses or people commuting to work. The lowest cost way to obtain hydrogen is strip the remaining carbon from natural gas, which is a low carbon fuel. Basically, you can get hydrogen for about 25% higher cost than natural gas, but it burns much cleaner and limits you to 100 miles between refills. It would be very easy to fit a carbon stripper to you natural gas line at home and refuel at night. Of course, you'd save more money simply refueling with natural gas, but Halliburton would not make the money they will make if we switch to Hydrogen,

  • Report this Comment On April 17, 2014, at 10:31 PM, greenknight32 wrote:

    brewmenn - You said "The winner will be the first to be able to travel 200-300 miles between refueling, and be able to refuel in under 15 minute at readily available refueling stations." How about 1000-3000 miles on a charge? The battery tech I described earlier will allow this, and the batteries will charge 10 times as fast as today's.

  • Report this Comment On April 18, 2014, at 12:11 AM, rotorhead1871 wrote:

    fuel cells are the way to go...batteries are just not primary power sources....Hydrogen can be generated at home and easily compressed.---just like natural gas.....

    batteries are like direct current.......when AC came along.....DC was it will be with battery cars......Fuel cells are the future...and everyone knows it....

    sorry battery lovers....

  • Report this Comment On April 18, 2014, at 5:22 PM, jeffhre wrote:

    " mikeswendrowski wrote:

    Two thirds of the worlds oceans are made of Hydrogen, talk about a limitless supply!

    My Point, we live on a "Water World" not a "Lithium World"."


    Hi Mike, the following statement is completely irrelevant to the discussion because of one concern - economics!

    There is more lithium floating around in seawater than has ever been mined + all of the worlds known reserves on land. But that fact is completely meaningless because it is so vastly much cheaper to get lithium from deposits in soil.

    Also hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe making up about 3/4 of all matter. Enjoy living in "Hydrogen Universe" where it is still far cheaper to run an EV with electricity than to convert that electricity into the worlds most abundant element.

  • Report this Comment On April 22, 2014, at 2:55 PM, thiagorulez wrote:

    Thanks for sharing this. I'm really hoping that the green cars and take a strong presence on the automobile scene. I want to get a green car eventually. Thiago |

  • Report this Comment On May 14, 2014, at 1:43 PM, oneandthesame wrote:

    I think the big automakers did their homework. Hydrogen covers a lot of bases and is the answer to multiple problems. It seems pointless to agrue here. With hydrogen, you need to look at the big picture.

Add your comment.

Sponsored Links

Leaked: Apple's Next Smart Device
(Warning, it may shock you)
The secret is out... experts are predicting 458 million of these types of devices will be sold per year. 1 hyper-growth company stands to rake in maximum profit - and it's NOT Apple. Show me Apple's new smart gizmo!

DocumentId: 2917053, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 8/28/2015 3:16:07 PM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...

Leo Sun

Leo has covered the crossroads of Wall Street and Silicon Valley since 2012. Follow him on Twitter for more updates!

Today's Market

updated Moments ago Sponsored by:
DOW 16,617.19 -37.58 -0.23%
S&P 500 1,983.52 -4.14 -0.21%
NASD 4,819.58 6.87 0.14%

Create My Watchlist

Go to My Watchlist

You don't seem to be following any stocks yet!

Better investing starts with a watchlist. Now you can create a personalized watchlist and get immediate access to the personalized information you need to make successful investing decisions.

Data delayed up to 5 minutes

Related Tickers

8/28/2015 2:59 PM
TM $120.73 Up +1.16 +0.97%
Toyota Motor Corp… CAPS Rating: ***
TSLA $248.12 Up +5.13 +2.11%
Tesla Motors CAPS Rating: **
HMC $31.92 Up +0.55 +1.75%
Honda Motor Co., L… CAPS Rating: *****
NRG $19.96 Up +0.14 +0.71%
NRG Energy, Inc. CAPS Rating: ***