That sounded interesting - until I saw in the paper that: 1 litre of LOHC => 2 kWh Cool? Except: 1 litre of Petrol => 9.7 kWh (according to this: https://gr

That sounded interesting - until I saw in the paper that: 1 litre of LOHC => 2 kWh Cool? Except: 1 litre of Petrol => 9.7 kWh (according to this: https://greennav.wordpress.com/2008/03/03/how-much-energy-in%E2%80%A6-cars/ https://greennav.wordpress.com/2008/03/03/how-much-energy-in...) I don't know about the accuracy of it, but I found this: https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/fuel_comparison_chart.pdf https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/fuel_comparison_chart.pdf ...and it says that 33.70 kWh of electricity is the equivalent of 1 gallon of gasoline; since 1 litre is about 0.26 gallons - that's close to the other number (off somewhat though; 8.76 kWh instead of 9.7 kWh). Regardless - it all seems to point to that either the tanks in a car would need to be 4-6 times larger - or the engines have to change in some manner to deliver the same level of performance with less energy - or something like that. Probably a combination of both. I'm making the assumption that the LOHC would be carried on-board the vehicle, as that seems (?) like it would be safer and easier than carrying around compressed hydrogen (embrittlement issues, migration issues, consumer aversion perhaps). I don't know, though, if LOHC is more or less dangerous for consumers to handle like gasoline, or if the dehydrogenation process can be done on-board a vehicle; the paper doesn't go into such detail. It does safe it is safe to store and transport via normal methods, so it sounds like it might be ok in that regard for consumers.