Clive, Respectfully your comments are the product of a deeply decisive marketing campaign and very much unrelated to physical or economic reality. Hydrolysis would indeed be feasible with the availably of abundant cheap renewable electricity. However for each unit of electricity an EV such as those produced by Tesla is capable of moving the same mass 400% of the distance simply by eliminating the waste of energy in producing, compressing, transporting and retrieving electricity from hydrogen. Moving electricity to market along wires and storing it on board an 85% efficient vehicle with all grid and charging losses accounted for is about 70% efficient in the conversion of source to kinetic energy. Introducing hydrogen into the equation reduces the efficiency to the order of 17 ~ 25%. There are no Rare Earth metals or minerals used in either the battery or motor of a Tesla Model S or any vehicle proposed by Tesla. One of the innovations of Tesla Motors Inc. is the extremely high performance AC Induction motor and associated inverter and its algorithms. Almost all other EVs have defaulted to a DC brushless system owing to the complexity of those algorithms. DC brushless frequently uses the Rare Earth neodymium in its permanent magnets. AC Induction has no permanent magnets. The magnetic fields are generated on the fly with AC current in copper coils and by induction as the name suggests. Naturally there can be no argument that the use of Platinum as a catalyst in Fuel cells is to rely upon a very uncommon element indeed. Regardless, there is no impetus for the introduction of FCVs except for the abundance of Natural Gas and the desire of its producers to head off competition from renewables and sustainable transportation by defrauding green consumers and green-leaning politicians with false and misleading advertising. Amongst the misleading things that are advertised to achieve deception: The use of hydrolysis when this cannot compete economically with Natural Gas nor can it compete with more constructive uses of renewable electricity than to waste 75% of it on hydrogen production fior FCVs. Never going to happen. The attempt to use solar to power FCVs via electrolysis would set back the renewable break-even point from 2~3 years in the future to 20 to 30 years in the future - which of course is the implicit outcome desired by the fossil fuel industry that is promoting hydrogen. Mr Musk has stated in interviews that a work-up of materials cost for the battery on the London Metal Exchange is $60~$70 per kWh. This is essentially 25% of the lowest generally accepted estimates for current battery cost. With the efficiency of vertical integration contemplated by Tesla in its Gigafactory it seems reasonable that battery cost will be halved at a fair estimate after all operating and manufacturing costs. Not forgetting that unlike fossil fuel feedstocks for Hydrogen, all battery materials are essentially recyclable. There can be no argument that a large mass of used batteries contains a higher concentration of valuable materials than any mineral ore produced from the ground, in addition large quantities of the same battery type have a distinct structure that lends itself to recycling by automated dismantling that can drastically improve upon the notion of melting the mixture together as the first step in recovery of dissimilar elements. Again the recyclability of fossil fuels is zero. In addition to cost improvements in battery technology as we know it, Tesla is a front runner in what is known as the Metal Air battery. It is somewhat like a fuel cell in that it absorbs oxygen from the air as part of a reaction to release electrons. In the case of Tesla however, this is a rechargeable battery offering something between 10 and 50 times the energy density of current Lithium Ion. When recharged it releases oxygen back into the air and like the other battery technologies with the exception of Fuel Cells it can be charged directly with renewable electricity. This is a technology that will extend the range of Tesla vehicles (and any drive train licensees that adopt it) by almost any number considered desirable - 500 to 1000 miles will be no issue. Tesla has filed patents for use of this technology as a range extender that obviates any possible merit in the use of fuel cells and their polluting feedstocks. Owing to the use of oxygen from the air to replace the entire cathode structure of a conventional battery as well as the need for many of the precautions required to place anode and cathode chemistries adjacent to one another, materials volume and cost is low. Although the financial motive of the proponents of Hydrogen Fuel Cells is straight forward and easy to understand (the protection of vested interests in polluting industries from competition). Sadly the deception is complex and lethally dangerous. I believe the easiest way to head off an environmental catastrophe resulting from this Cuckoo In The Nest deception is to set standards banning the advertising promotion of any product of Fracking and Steam Reforming as green, environmentally friendly, totally emissions free and so on. Instead to require proof and guarantees in connection with the promotion or offer of sale of any FCV that any hydrogen supply made available for it must only be from a renewable source for the lifetime of the vehicle. It is beyond specious to suggest that the source of hydrogen will become greener over time. That is precisely the opposite of the intentions of any party from Big Oil to Big Auto currently involved in the promotion of this technology.