Agree with most of your points. There are some valid observations that he then smoothly extrapolates to invalid conclusions. There has been considerable progr

Agree with most of your points. There are some valid observations that he then smoothly extrapolates to invalid conclusions. There has been considerable progress in fuel cell vehicles, for example. The Honda Clarity fuel cell version has an estimated 360+ mi (US EPA) range: https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a15096419/2017-honda-clarity-fuel-cell-first-drive-review/ https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a15096419/2017-honda-cl... . Fill times are significantly better than current high-rate battery electric vehicle charging. It seems to me the key will be in whether we make advancements faster in higher energy-density batteries vs. scale up of direct hydrogen production (e.g., https://solarfuelshub.org/192301-vapor-fed-cells https://solarfuelshub.org/192301-vapor-fed-cells ) . Electrolysis using grid power probably does not make sense. It would be valid to question, even if we could directly scale up hydrogen production from renewable sources, wouldn't it make more sense to use the same area for electricity production? If we're talking about ground transportation, the only advantages would be in range and fill time of FCVs over BEVs. Simplicity strongly favors BEVs over FCVs. Hydrogen combustion for ground transportation (although neat!) just does not seem compelling. It will take a lot of plumbing refits, fuel injector changes, ECU recalibration, etc. to make an existing IC car burn hydrogen. And if you're designing from scratch, why continue the burden of using an Otto cycle reciprocating machine over fuel cells? Absent compelling reasons to do otherwise (which the Zubrin article does not present), it seems like continuing the research relevant to BEVs and renewable hydrogen production on parallel paths is the prudent thing to do.