Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

(1) I may have misspoke about achievable energy density. What I really meant to communicate was this: Hydrogen cars post driving ranges comparable to EVs. The Tesla Model 3 and Model S can go 310 and 335 miles, respectively, whereas the H2-powered Toyota Mirai can go 312 miles. There are probably other good examples. I expect them to group in with these.

(2) ICs have been dominant, and you are right that there's been a lot of EV trying in the last century, but we've never so interested in that alternative as now. Public interest drives the market.

I looked at a Chevy Bolt fairly closely, not really intending to buy, but pondering whether it was practicable or not.  It is roughly equivalent to a Chevy Cruze hatchback in size and options, and costs somewhere around $10,000 more, after the tax credit, if you get one.  It drives pretty well, good initial pickup of course.  Range is listed at 238 miles and I read that folks are exceeding that.  It takes a while to recharge, and a very long time to recoup costs versus the initial expense.

And apparently GM is losing $10,000 on each one they sell.

They are cheaper to own, but not nearly cheaper to buy, or even close, by any rational analysis.  And no new Tesla costs $40 K, they don't make those.

Regarding BEV vs Hydrogen fuel cell...

I'm not an expert on the economics of battery technology or production. But doesn't making a battery--even if the chemistry improves--involve huge costs to mine metals out of the ground? Can we do this at levels economically sustainable enough to have BEV take over the auto industry? Or will we reach a point where we can't improve battery price because we cannot extract the raw materials out of the ground at a price less than the cost of the battery itself, hence no profit? The idea is that once costs come down, demand increases exponentially--but not if supply can't increase as elastically as the demand needs it to.

I think the allure of hydrogen is that it's a plentiful, renewable resource. Turning it from the forms it exists in nature into the form that powers a fuel cell is hard, but we already know that if you supply enough electricity, you can make it easily from a VERY plentiful and renewable resource--water. It might just be that producing hydrogen in high quantities is a harder economic problem than mining metals for batteries. But at least logically, it has an easier path to scale than pulling metal out of the ground.

The metals used in batteries are quite common on the planet, generally speaking.  I don't think there is an issue obtaining more lithium for example, some of the more exotic types like cobalt could be more of a challenge, geopolitically if nothing else.

https://smallcaps.com.au/which-metals-benefit-lithium-ion-battery-boom/

I see it as something that needs work, but no more than is used to find more petroleum for example.

Ahh, good to know. As I said, I don't really know the economics of lithium mining... 

If it scales easily, that is huge for BEV. Then it's becomes a question more of the ability to improve battery chemistry to achieve price points where there's a product "good enough" at a price point "good enough" to overtake ICE.

bwarbs: At $40K+, you seem to be thinking more about the Tesla Models S and X. I was moreso thinking of the $35K Model 3. It's often compared to the BMW M3 in comfort and performance, but the sticker price is that of a $30K-$40X run of the mill car.

Model S starts at $78K. Model X starts at 83K. Not talking about those. Those are FAR higher up the ladder.

The cheapest Model 3 that you can buy online is $39.5K. That's the 240 mile range, not the 300+ range model. It's true that it's decently fast for the price (5.3s 0-60), but I think beyond that it doesn't really compare to an M3. It's more comparable to a 3-series or A4 than an M3 or S4. 

Either way, it's irrelevant. Tesla might not be around 3 months from now. 

Riffraft: Cost is already cheaper for the buyer.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/constancedouris/2017/10/24/the-bottom-line-on-electric-cars-theyre-cheaper-to-own/#16f3f2e110b6

Even moreso if you consider the 10-year cost of a vehicle. I can drive a Tesla from rural Indiana to family in San Diego and without paying a dime for "fuel," as long as I use the correct stations and the free charging offered for the model. Those charging stations are now 150 miles or less from 99% of the american population (usually less; often much less). And even without free charging, which I admit may not be a cost to me, but is a cost to someone, we're talking about a total less than $10 per 100 miles. And this is without mentioning the lower rates of wear and tear (a benefit for vehicles with fewer moving parts) or the rebates and incentives to reduce the sticker price ... which is already in the competitive $30K - $40K range for economy models.

We can still rail against driving range for EVs, but not cost. That's a war they have a clear path to winning.

It is the same argument for solar energy. Yes the operation costs are cheaper but the upfront cost are way more expense and the breakeven point is well down the road (the wording was intentional)