Actually, YOU are confusing a practical fuel cell with an ideal fuel cell. There are a number of challenges of producing a fuel cell that can be used by the general public. Remember Apollo 13? Its problems were all because of a faulty fuel cell. There are many serious issues to solve before a fuel cell can receive, store and deliver as much energy as a 20 gallon fuel tank.
Granted, there are issues to be solved.
However, as we solve them - we will find that we may wind up getting 2x as much energy out of that same 20 gallon fuel tank, as we presently get today.
Personally, I believe we have pushed the internal combustion engine about as far as we can go. The Fuel Cell (and there are 22 models that I’m aware of) can use a wide variety of fuels. Obviously, the ‘cleanest’ would use Hydrogen - but, this does technology does appear to be a worthwhile investment.
What is going to be an unfortunate, but time tested and proven method - is the Gov’t leading the way. NASA did an admirable job, back in their heyday. The spinoff technologies they created more than paid for the investment.
I’d like to see the military use funding to do research on this. Get tanks that can double their range between refueling, where the supply lines we need could be farther apart, or have a reduced amount of fuel they would have to carry. If a tank went to a 200 mile range, instead of 75 miles - this would extend our fighting capabilties.
I am not a fan of Hydrogen Fuel Cells. Strapping two pressurized bombs under my family, then driving down the highway seems too dangerous for serious consideration. The tanks I have seen are 8 ft long SCUBA type tanks - pressurized to 3000psi. Not counting the flamability, even if it were just air - 3000 psi released in a collision will be explosive and will likely kill the occupants simply from the shock wave.