The study finds that the subsidies required for hydrogen (fuel+infrastructure) are estimated to be about $30 billion, depending on technology status. It tells us there is no agreement on how a hydrogen refueling infrastructure should be, if not has been, developed. However, it suggests we need $30 billion. Hydrogen may be extracted from natural gas by steam reforming or from water by electrolysis. Fundamental laws of physics expose the weakness of a hydrogen economy. Energy cannot be created, it can only be converted from one state to another, and some energy is always lost during the conversion. Hydrogen is an artificial energy carrier, and can never compete with its own energy source, either natural gas or electricity, in a sustainable future. Why spend $30 billion on a unknown status and known facts.

I almost thought MIT has a branch in UK. Isn't the University of London a better body to voice this concern, it consists of 19 separate university institutions, and 12 research institutes.

Simply based on the EPA 1998 and 2010 emissions regulations, NOx should reduce from 4 g/hp-hr to 0.2 g/hp-hr, 2010 MY truck would emit 95% less NOx compared to 1999 MY truck. Shouldn't funding be use on other research which is more meaning????

Fundamental laws of physics expose the weakness of a H2 economy. Energy cannot be created, it can only be converted from one state to another, and some energy is always lost during the conversion, H2 is an artificial energy carrier, and can never compete with its own energy source, either natural gas or electricity, in a sustainable future. By creating a link between the power generation and transport sectors, natural gas-fired electricity generation in combination with PHEVs, will be one of the pathways that are both highly efficient and sustainable.

Products rely on subsidies and incentives would not be sustained. In early 2000's, a lot of tax payer's money poured into NGVs, how many of them are running today?

The statement "To execute this mission successfully, US military departments must have the energy, land, air, and water resources necessary to train and operate, today and in the future, in a world where there is increasing competition for resources, according to DoD." is very annoying. I imagine Hitler had the same mission too.

It's all about $$$$$, there are no different, CAD or USD or EUR.

Very good question, kelly. The shortcoming will be rectified if it really exists.

I wonder are there nothing else have better use of $50 million. Are there such a need of 22,650 wheelchair accessible vehicles, gasoline or CNG-fueled. I doubt very much this tax-payers funded project would really creat more than 900 jobs, who is going to follow up?

The draft bill does not address enough on energy efficiency which is by far the important element on energy security and climate change. Back to the basic, they are law makers, creating bills and raising funds to win a seat for another term.

It is not clear how much CO2 these converters need. As HarveyD said if it works, it will recycle the CO2 that those coal powered plants produce, these converters will replace the Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) concept which is also doubtful if CCS technology will be matured.

Who is "We" that need to maintain momentum in the hydrogen fuel cell pathway?? Hydrogen can never establish itself as a dominant energy carrier. It has to be fabricated from high grade energy and it has to compete with high grade energy in the market place. Hydrogen cannot win this fight against its own energy source. Physics is eternal and cannot be charged by man. Therefore, a Hydrogen Economy has no past, no present and no future. The road to sustainability leads to an Electron Economy.