BombR76 January 7, 2014 04:14 PM It's ALL Bush's Fault !!! LOL "The Bush administration said Tuesday it would provide $119 million in funding for research into hydrogen fuel cells." (Jan 17, 2006) "The funding is part of President Bush's $1.7 billion hydrogen research program, first detailed in 2003." http://www.enn.com/top_stories/article/3538 Good, clean, sustainable! Drive on . . . Gavin Roe January 7, 2014 07:07 PM how are they storing the hydrogen and how are we sourcing the gas, the car ugly and pedestrian safety doesn't appear to be considered Brucy January 8, 2014 08:25 AM Splitting water into hydrogene and oxygene is the most dangerous thing mankind can do. Over the time a big part of hydrogene will fade away in space and water will be lost for the future. Nuclear plants are toys compared to the long term effects of a global usage of hydrolysis. RelayerM31 January 8, 2014 10:29 AM Right-O. Nuke is the way to go. It's the densest source of energy currently available. We've improved on cruise ships since the Titanic and we've improved on nuke plant designs too. Right now we have meltdown proof nuclear power plants. Plus, fusion is right around the corner. piperTom January 8, 2014 12:43 PM As hydrogen storage is difficult and dangerous, it's wrong to leave out that detail. Another source (automobilemag.com) says that it is carbon fiber wrapped tanks located under and behind the rear seat. Also, hydrogen will leak thru any solid material, so -- are the loses significant?Brucy is wrong to worry about loss of water. This technology will be long obsolete before it can make a measurable dent in Earth's water supply. However, the SOURCE of the hydrogen is quite relevant. The only economical source at present is natural gas. Thus, what we have here is a heavily subsidized methane powered car, with the added problems of per-processing the methane and distribution/storage as hydrogen. It's yet another "green" government initiative that will consume more resources than it saves. Please save us from political technology. Phillip Noe January 8, 2014 01:55 PM Ahead of its time? Fossil fuels are currently the source of hydrogen. That is likely to change but we aren't there yet. This concept looks premature for the masses but an interesting first step Slowburn January 8, 2014 02:17 PM They of course fail to mention that generating free hydrogen is energy intensive and that compressing the hydrogen to useful concentrations is energy energy intensive.@ Brucy I agree that the "hydrogen economy" is a bad idea but please keep your objections reality based. water falls from space every day in the form of meteors. The whole running out of water thing is fresh water and is a local problem wherever it occurs. reducing water consumption in New Orleans is not going to help Denver. Jeff Michelson January 8, 2014 03:01 PM I like any technology that sources its fuel locally. I don't care if it is nuclear, wind, coal, oil, LNG, etc., so long as it is pulled from American soil, air, or water, prior to pumping it into my car. RelayerM31 hit the nail on the head with this. All these technologies are stop-gaps until we find reliable ways to produce electricity from fusion. In the mean time, I, personally, am more than willing to spend the extra $$$ on electric vehicles, and will look into leasing this Toyota as soon as my Nissan Leaf lease is up at the end of this year. T Patrick Culp January 8, 2014 07:00 PM I love all these stupid remarks about the dangers of hydrogen. Hydrogen is the lightest gas and when released and or burned goes straight up. One of the reasons the Hindenburg was so spectacular. What most idiots do not know about the Hindenburg is the little known fact that over half of the people on board walked away and only one ground crew member was killed. If the Hindenburg was instead filled with gasoline all of New Jersey would have burned. Little known fact #2: All cars burn hydrogen. Gasoline is a hydrocarbon and it is the hydrogen that burns and the carbon that is exhausted. Quit speaking without having the facts, it's making you look stupid. Esteban Sperber Frankel January 8, 2014 11:38 PM Hydrogen is the "future mobility", is not a requirement to fill the tank to the fuel cell car with hydrogen, it is enough with compressed natural gas, converting by fracking with a mini plasma reactor to Hydrogen and Blackcarbon as byproduct which by filling the tank with compressed natural gas in the same time the blackcarbon absorved with a vacum mashine, the filling compressed natural gas station has only a compresor and a vacum mashine, the compresed natural gas tank in the car can be reduced about 5.8 times than hydrogen tank by the same 300 miles consumtion, also the byproduct of the fuel cell is water, I sugest a electric in every wheel, so will be enough place for all component for a fuel cell car, the "future mobility" is now here.