21 ms·

Since “tank” isn’t a unit of measure, I suppose anyone could trivially break the record with a larger tank. From the article: > The Nexo consumed 6.27kg of H2

by KMnO4 5y ago

Since “tank” isn’t a unit of measure, I suppose anyone could trivially break the record with a larger tank. From the article: > The Nexo consumed 6.27kg of H2 For comparison with the other production H2 cars: Toyota Mirai: 5.6kg Honda Clarity: 5.0kg Seems like a promising technology. My understanding is that the current blocker is infrastructure. It’s hard to pressurize up to 10,000 PSI, so many facilities are only able to refill to 60-80% capacity.

metalliqaz 5y ago
Sounds like you're talking about distribution infrastructure, which is true but in my mind the biggest issue is efficiency. Storing and using H2 isn't very efficient, and current production techniques for H2 emit as much or more carbon as Diesel.
- bildung 5y ago
  All true, though to be fair CO2 savings with electric cars also only range, depending on car and country (i.e. local infrastructure and means of electricity production), from 0% to 35% of lifetime CO2 emissions of an equivalent ICE car). https://theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/EV-life-cycle-GHG_ICCT-Briefing_09022018_vF.pdf https://theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/EV-life...
  - devmor 5y ago
    I wouldn't consider up to 35% to be worth of the disqualifier "only" - that's a pretty huge reduction, even if we'd like it to be much more.
    - bildung 5y ago
      Absolutely, I meant that the gains made by electric cars aren't that huge that the inefficiency of h2 production automatically disqualifies that approach. (I do feel the need to point out that public transport saves much more though, 85% for Hamburg, Germany, so again this heavily depends on the local situation.)
  - canadianfella 5y ago
    Only?
- nobleach 5y ago
  This is true. The current production techniques are basically using water. This is producing a ton of CO2 - the very opposite of what we're hoping to attain by running Hydrogen-powered vehicles. The hope is that we're able to leverage methane from animal droppings in the near future. Toyota is leading the research on this I believe.
  - epistasis 5y ago
    Current production methods use natural gas, specifically methane. Animal droppings will never supply enough methane to be a significant source of energy. The goal is to eventually produce hydrogen from water, through electrolysis. We have tech for this, but it's very expensive compared to our methane methods. Current electrolyzers are used for industrial applications. Spain is currently planning a huge deployment of electrolyzers to make ammonia, mostly for fertilizer. And honestly, electrolyzed hydrogen will mostly be used in industry, and maybe some long-haul transport, but almost certainly will never make sense for cars. We will probably see hydrogen converted to methanol or ammonia or something else that's easier to handle than hydrogen. Though I do hear that hydrogen could be used with current ocean freighters with only a 10% loss of capacity, so there's some potential there.
    - Skunkleton 5y ago
      Animal droppings are not our primary source of methane. Not sure if that was meant to be sarcastic. Electrolysis is expensive and energy inefficient. It is unlikely to be a primary source of hydrogen unless there is some breakthrough. If the limiting factor is clean electricity production, it makes sense to use it more efficiently with a BEV than it does to use it inefficiently with a HFCV.
      - epistasis 5y ago
        The comment I was replying to said two odd, incorrect things: 1) water is our primary source of hydrogen (it isn't), and 2) that people were researching animal droppings as a source of hydrogen. Though people are looking for biogas to be a replacement for fossil-natural gas, there won't be enoug my for that, and certainly using it for steam methane reformation to hydrogen would be a poor use for biogas. Hydrogen is an essential industrial input and feedstock for many processes, including production of fertilizer in the form of ammonia. So we will be producing hydrogen for that, without a doubt. It is estimated that by 2030 or so that electrolyzers will be as cheap as steam methane reformation (SMR), with or without carbon capture on the SMR. We will see if that prediction pans out! The IEA has put approximately 850GW of hydrogen production as a feasibly goal by 2030 as part of their plan for keeping climate warming at 1.5C, with half of that from electrolyzers. This may be fairly plausible, as Europe has mandated 40GW of electrolyzers by 2030, and there are currently 154GW of hydrogen electrolyzers in the pipeline: https://www.rechargenews.com/energy-transition/growing-ambition-the-worlds-22-largest-green-hydrogen-projects/2-1-933755 https://www.rechargenews.com/energy-transition/growing-ambit...
giantg2 5y ago
Hydride tanks don't require those high pressures. Other than nuclear arms treaties, is there a technical reason they don't use those instead?
- WJW 5y ago
  That's a hell of a "Other than" you have there.
- tyingq 5y ago
  Long fill times? This commercially available one says 48 hours to re-charge it. https://www.fuelcellstore.com/hydrogen-equipment/hydrogen-storage/metal-hydrides/bl-740-metal-hydride https://www.fuelcellstore.com/hydrogen-equipment/hydrogen-st...
  - giantg2 5y ago
    Yeah, but ideally they'd be swappable. Similar to propane tank exchanges. Or even how some EVs were thinking about battery swap stations.
    - csharptwdec19 5y ago
      Ehh, I feel like there's some challenges there. In the Toyota Mirai, for example, the tank is located under the passenger's seats, in a nice little 'braced' area. Likely chosen because it's the least likely location for the tank to get damaged in a collision. Also the challenge of either having to 'choose' between a 'swap' tank and a 'fill' tank, or a more complex tank that does both.
      - tyingq 5y ago
        The tank I linked to says it stores at 400psi, and the material data sheet indicates it doesn't vent the hydrogen in a way that creates a significant fire hazard. So I don't think these need the same kind of protection as a high-psi tank. Though I'm sure there are challenges, or we would have heard about them being proposed.
throwaway0a5e 5y ago
10,000PSI hydraulics are rapidly becoming cookie cutter commodity parts. Once you have the supply chain for all the little crap that nickles and dimes you the rest is a lot cheaper. Having industry expertise at working at those pressures really has a huge multiplier effect on everything else. Building a system to plumb stuff from A to B at a pressure nobody uses is expensive. Calling up a sales rep and asking for slightly modifications on an existing product line so it can be used with your product is pennies by comparison.
- snypher 5y ago
  I can picture how the conversation would go. There's some pretty big differences between hydrogen and hydraulic fluid, probably to the point of whole component redesign. The little crap here (springs and o-rings) would be completely different.
  - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
    You're not wrong but "can you make hose X with material Y" or "can I get valve body P with spring rate Q" is a hell of a lot better than "we need custom hoses" or "is this casting good to 10kpsi?".
    - simcop2387 5y ago
      The big problem with hydrogen is just how small it is. It likes to leach through stuff hold just about everything else. You very well might need custom hoses, custom seals, and custom materials for the castings just to safely store it at 10kpsi. It'll leak through solid steel containers that will otherwise hold helium fine.
      - HPsquared 5y ago
        Even worse than simply leaking, hydrogen can diffuse into the crystal structure of metals and cause havoc with the material properties. It's definitely not as friendly as hydraulic oil.
contriban 5y ago
> anyone could trivially break the record "Make it bigger" doesn't really work in cars, otherwise range anxiety wouldn't exist as a concept. The record still makes sense because the Hyundai Nexo is commercially available and it's not a prototype with a comically-large just for the record tank.
- 542458 5y ago
  “Make it bigger” does work, but it increasingly stops resembling a car. Check out the range this one can get on a single tank of hydrogen! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas-Centaur https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas-Centaur I don’t know what you’d consider the max range here to be, but it’s definitely better than 887km.
  - beckingz 5y ago
    I think the space shuttle may win for most kilometers traveled on a single hydrogen tank.
    - 542458 5y ago
      I would have citied that, but they use solid boosters which makes the number messier... I could get a lot of range on a Tesla if I was allowed to use solid fuel boosters!
    - 0x64 5y ago
      Shuttle had solid-fuel boosters and hypergolic thrusters for on-orbit maneuvering. The Delta IV Heavy, on the other hand, is a fully hydrogen-powered rocket: three common cores, with an RL10-powered upper stage. It also launched the Parker Solar Probe, which has been doing rounds around the sun for a while now.
  - dweekly 5y ago
    Excellent range. And to the point of the comment, said linked vehicle is a production vehicle where the tank was not added for the sole purpose of breaking a record, so... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
judge2020 5y ago
The amount actually traveled on a single tank is indeed meaningless - Teslas can go a thousand miles if you go up a mountain, end up at 10% battery, then charge to & past 100% on the way down the mountain via regen. Improving overall efficiency should be what is strived for.
- Widdershin 5y ago
  Assuming you’re starting with a significant amount of altitude, otherwise the laws of thermodynamics would like a word
  - margalabargala 5y ago
    They could be grabbing a bunch of rocks at the top and putting them in the car for the ride down. That worked for this one: https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1124478_world-s-largest-ev-never-has-to-be-recharged https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1124478_world-s-largest...
NikolaNovak 5y ago
Gack... one of my pet peeves: 90% of my friends compare car millage in terms of "how much money I spend to refuel", completely ignoring: 1. Significantly different tank sizes - 53L to 70L on regular cars. 2. Different prices of gas (suburbs vs downtown, 87 vs 91 octane, etc) 3. Different habits - some refuel at 1/3 left, 1/4 left, 50km left, yellow light on, needle at the end of the gauge, etc It drives me absolutely bonkers banana berserk, but... nothing I've been able to do so far :-/
- bombcar 5y ago
  It's not scientific at all, but for most people gas mileage comes down to "how often do I have to go to the gas station". Which is why once electric cars passed a certain point they become effectively infinite mileage as far as people are concerned (as they never have to think about charging as it's always charged overnight). Similar for how for most people there are only two speeds of computers - I have to wait for it vs I don't have to wait for it.
- Closi 5y ago
  I hate to tell you this but 90% of your friends are silly, all mine talk about miles per gallon.
  - NikolaNovak 5y ago
    >>I hate to tell you this but 90% of your friends are silly, Quoted out of context like that, that's probably the best compliment on living life right that I've had in a long time! :->
- NikolaeVarius 5y ago
  I have never heard of anyone judging fuel cost outside of miles/kilometers per gallon/liters. Where the hell do you live
  - NikolaNovak 5y ago
    Hmm, slightly different measurement. They're not talking about "sticker price of fuel at the gas station", so not "fuel cost". Rather, if you ask them casually in an informal setting "Does your car get good milleage", they'll say things like "Yeah, it only costs me $50 to fill it up!" or my personal favourite, "Yeah, I only have to fill it once per week" --> the amount of unspoken variables in that one just boggles the mind, but goes to another commenter's point of "practical perspective". "How often I need to fill it up" is probably a sane, pragmatical way to think of milleage. It may in fact cut to the point faster than saying "it does 11L / 100km", because while it answers some questions in abstract, it doesn't actually answer the practical considerations of how often I need to refuel / how far can I get on a tank. As mentioned in my another reply, for me at least, it hasn't been a factor of where I live but variety of company I keep -- on average I'd say my Comsci/Sci-major friends don't do it. But I'm currently in Canada, where we do indeed as per stereotype, measure distance in units of time ("How far is your work?" "About 20 minutes" ComSciMajor response: "GAAACK!")
_ph_ 5y ago
Beyond the missing expensive infrastructure, the big problem is energy efficiency. Moving forward, we have to switch every energy production to renewables. But for the same amount of electric energy produced, an electric car gets about 3x the mileage than producing "green" hydrogen and powering fuel cell cars with it. Hydrogen means at least 3x the electricity cost and for many years to come, we are going to struggle producing enough clean electricity in the first place. Also the infrastructure for electricity basically is there, mostly needed are plain outlets at all long-term parking spots. And of course, one can charge an electric car from your own solar.
- JPKab 5y ago
  The key to a hydrogen economy will rely on creation of hydrogen in locations with extremely abundant electricity like Iceland. The next step is shipping it like it's LNG. Not a small order.
  - danogentili 5y ago
    > The key to a hydrogen economy will rely on wasting energy on creation of hydrogen in locations with extremely abundant electricity. Honestly, this sounds just as bad as setting up bitcoin mines in places with high rates of renewables, to avoid directly throwing tons of CO2 in the atmosphere. Even if you have loads of clean energy, that's no reason to waste it when there are more efficient ways of using it (lithium batteries, PoS). Not to mention the fact that every watt of wasted green energy can't used to replace a watt of coal energy.
    - JPKab 5y ago
      I don't think there's a scarcity issue with electricity in places like Iceland where volcanic activity provides massive areas of land where electricity can be freely and easily generated. The issue is the ability to transport said electricity without massive losses.
    - mminer237 5y ago
      I don't think you can feasibly ship all your electric batteries to be charged up in Iceland.
toast0 5y ago
Feels like the infrastructure and on car issues are going to be similar to CNG, but worse. Need new fuel stations, high pressure storage, no existing delivery network (worse than CNG; although CNG pipelines are much lower pressure than vehicles need, so you needed a compressor at the fueling point); and the killer --- the vehicle tanks expire and replacement may not be economically feasible, in which case your car's value evaporates when the tank expires (generally 15 years after tank manufacture); this is what happened to most CNG cars.

by KMnO4 5y ago

metalliqaz 5y ago

Sounds like you're talking about distribution infrastructure, which is true but in my mind the biggest issue is efficiency. Storing and using H2 isn't very efficient, and current production techniques for H2 emit as much or more carbon as Diesel.

bildung 5y ago
All true, though to be fair CO2 savings with electric cars also only range, depending on car and country (i.e. local infrastructure and means of electricity production), from 0% to 35% of lifetime CO2 emissions of an equivalent ICE car). https://theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/EV-life-cycle-GHG_ICCT-Briefing_09022018_vF.pdf https://theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/EV-life...
- devmor 5y ago
  I wouldn't consider up to 35% to be worth of the disqualifier "only" - that's a pretty huge reduction, even if we'd like it to be much more.
  - bildung 5y ago
    Absolutely, I meant that the gains made by electric cars aren't that huge that the inefficiency of h2 production automatically disqualifies that approach. (I do feel the need to point out that public transport saves much more though, 85% for Hamburg, Germany, so again this heavily depends on the local situation.)
- canadianfella 5y ago
  Only?
nobleach 5y ago
This is true. The current production techniques are basically using water. This is producing a ton of CO2 - the very opposite of what we're hoping to attain by running Hydrogen-powered vehicles. The hope is that we're able to leverage methane from animal droppings in the near future. Toyota is leading the research on this I believe.
- epistasis 5y ago
  Current production methods use natural gas, specifically methane. Animal droppings will never supply enough methane to be a significant source of energy. The goal is to eventually produce hydrogen from water, through electrolysis. We have tech for this, but it's very expensive compared to our methane methods. Current electrolyzers are used for industrial applications. Spain is currently planning a huge deployment of electrolyzers to make ammonia, mostly for fertilizer. And honestly, electrolyzed hydrogen will mostly be used in industry, and maybe some long-haul transport, but almost certainly will never make sense for cars. We will probably see hydrogen converted to methanol or ammonia or something else that's easier to handle than hydrogen. Though I do hear that hydrogen could be used with current ocean freighters with only a 10% loss of capacity, so there's some potential there.
  - Skunkleton 5y ago
    Animal droppings are not our primary source of methane. Not sure if that was meant to be sarcastic. Electrolysis is expensive and energy inefficient. It is unlikely to be a primary source of hydrogen unless there is some breakthrough. If the limiting factor is clean electricity production, it makes sense to use it more efficiently with a BEV than it does to use it inefficiently with a HFCV.
    - epistasis 5y ago
      The comment I was replying to said two odd, incorrect things: 1) water is our primary source of hydrogen (it isn't), and 2) that people were researching animal droppings as a source of hydrogen. Though people are looking for biogas to be a replacement for fossil-natural gas, there won't be enoug my for that, and certainly using it for steam methane reformation to hydrogen would be a poor use for biogas. Hydrogen is an essential industrial input and feedstock for many processes, including production of fertilizer in the form of ammonia. So we will be producing hydrogen for that, without a doubt. It is estimated that by 2030 or so that electrolyzers will be as cheap as steam methane reformation (SMR), with or without carbon capture on the SMR. We will see if that prediction pans out! The IEA has put approximately 850GW of hydrogen production as a feasibly goal by 2030 as part of their plan for keeping climate warming at 1.5C, with half of that from electrolyzers. This may be fairly plausible, as Europe has mandated 40GW of electrolyzers by 2030, and there are currently 154GW of hydrogen electrolyzers in the pipeline: https://www.rechargenews.com/energy-transition/growing-ambition-the-worlds-22-largest-green-hydrogen-projects/2-1-933755 https://www.rechargenews.com/energy-transition/growing-ambit...

giantg2 5y ago

Hydride tanks don't require those high pressures. Other than nuclear arms treaties, is there a technical reason they don't use those instead?

WJW 5y ago
That's a hell of a "Other than" you have there.
tyingq 5y ago
Long fill times? This commercially available one says 48 hours to re-charge it. https://www.fuelcellstore.com/hydrogen-equipment/hydrogen-storage/metal-hydrides/bl-740-metal-hydride https://www.fuelcellstore.com/hydrogen-equipment/hydrogen-st...
- giantg2 5y ago
  Yeah, but ideally they'd be swappable. Similar to propane tank exchanges. Or even how some EVs were thinking about battery swap stations.
  - csharptwdec19 5y ago
    Ehh, I feel like there's some challenges there. In the Toyota Mirai, for example, the tank is located under the passenger's seats, in a nice little 'braced' area. Likely chosen because it's the least likely location for the tank to get damaged in a collision. Also the challenge of either having to 'choose' between a 'swap' tank and a 'fill' tank, or a more complex tank that does both.
    - tyingq 5y ago
      The tank I linked to says it stores at 400psi, and the material data sheet indicates it doesn't vent the hydrogen in a way that creates a significant fire hazard. So I don't think these need the same kind of protection as a high-psi tank. Though I'm sure there are challenges, or we would have heard about them being proposed.

throwaway0a5e 5y ago

10,000PSI hydraulics are rapidly becoming cookie cutter commodity parts. Once you have the supply chain for all the little crap that nickles and dimes you the rest is a lot cheaper. Having industry expertise at working at those pressures really has a huge multiplier effect on everything else. Building a system to plumb stuff from A to B at a pressure nobody uses is expensive. Calling up a sales rep and asking for slightly modifications on an existing product line so it can be used with your product is pennies by comparison.

snypher 5y ago
I can picture how the conversation would go. There's some pretty big differences between hydrogen and hydraulic fluid, probably to the point of whole component redesign. The little crap here (springs and o-rings) would be completely different.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  You're not wrong but "can you make hose X with material Y" or "can I get valve body P with spring rate Q" is a hell of a lot better than "we need custom hoses" or "is this casting good to 10kpsi?".
  - simcop2387 5y ago
    The big problem with hydrogen is just how small it is. It likes to leach through stuff hold just about everything else. You very well might need custom hoses, custom seals, and custom materials for the castings just to safely store it at 10kpsi. It'll leak through solid steel containers that will otherwise hold helium fine.
    - HPsquared 5y ago
      Even worse than simply leaking, hydrogen can diffuse into the crystal structure of metals and cause havoc with the material properties. It's definitely not as friendly as hydraulic oil.

contriban 5y ago

> anyone could trivially break the record "Make it bigger" doesn't really work in cars, otherwise range anxiety wouldn't exist as a concept. The record still makes sense because the Hyundai Nexo is commercially available and it's not a prototype with a comically-large just for the record tank.

542458 5y ago
“Make it bigger” does work, but it increasingly stops resembling a car. Check out the range this one can get on a single tank of hydrogen! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas-Centaur https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas-Centaur I don’t know what you’d consider the max range here to be, but it’s definitely better than 887km.
- beckingz 5y ago
  I think the space shuttle may win for most kilometers traveled on a single hydrogen tank.
  - 542458 5y ago
    I would have citied that, but they use solid boosters which makes the number messier... I could get a lot of range on a Tesla if I was allowed to use solid fuel boosters!
  - 0x64 5y ago
    Shuttle had solid-fuel boosters and hypergolic thrusters for on-orbit maneuvering. The Delta IV Heavy, on the other hand, is a fully hydrogen-powered rocket: three common cores, with an RL10-powered upper stage. It also launched the Parker Solar Probe, which has been doing rounds around the sun for a while now.
- dweekly 5y ago
  Excellent range. And to the point of the comment, said linked vehicle is a production vehicle where the tank was not added for the sole purpose of breaking a record, so... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

judge2020 5y ago

The amount actually traveled on a single tank is indeed meaningless - Teslas can go a thousand miles if you go up a mountain, end up at 10% battery, then charge to & past 100% on the way down the mountain via regen. Improving overall efficiency should be what is strived for.

Widdershin 5y ago
Assuming you’re starting with a significant amount of altitude, otherwise the laws of thermodynamics would like a word
- margalabargala 5y ago
  They could be grabbing a bunch of rocks at the top and putting them in the car for the ride down. That worked for this one: https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1124478_world-s-largest-ev-never-has-to-be-recharged https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1124478_world-s-largest...

NikolaNovak 5y ago

Gack... one of my pet peeves: 90% of my friends compare car millage in terms of "how much money I spend to refuel", completely ignoring: 1. Significantly different tank sizes - 53L to 70L on regular cars. 2. Different prices of gas (suburbs vs downtown, 87 vs 91 octane, etc) 3. Different habits - some refuel at 1/3 left, 1/4 left, 50km left, yellow light on, needle at the end of the gauge, etc It drives me absolutely bonkers banana berserk, but... nothing I've been able to do so far :-/

bombcar 5y ago
It's not scientific at all, but for most people gas mileage comes down to "how often do I have to go to the gas station". Which is why once electric cars passed a certain point they become effectively infinite mileage as far as people are concerned (as they never have to think about charging as it's always charged overnight). Similar for how for most people there are only two speeds of computers - I have to wait for it vs I don't have to wait for it.
Closi 5y ago
I hate to tell you this but 90% of your friends are silly, all mine talk about miles per gallon.
- NikolaNovak 5y ago
  >>I hate to tell you this but 90% of your friends are silly, Quoted out of context like that, that's probably the best compliment on living life right that I've had in a long time! :->
NikolaeVarius 5y ago
I have never heard of anyone judging fuel cost outside of miles/kilometers per gallon/liters. Where the hell do you live
- NikolaNovak 5y ago
  Hmm, slightly different measurement. They're not talking about "sticker price of fuel at the gas station", so not "fuel cost". Rather, if you ask them casually in an informal setting "Does your car get good milleage", they'll say things like "Yeah, it only costs me $50 to fill it up!" or my personal favourite, "Yeah, I only have to fill it once per week" --> the amount of unspoken variables in that one just boggles the mind, but goes to another commenter's point of "practical perspective". "How often I need to fill it up" is probably a sane, pragmatical way to think of milleage. It may in fact cut to the point faster than saying "it does 11L / 100km", because while it answers some questions in abstract, it doesn't actually answer the practical considerations of how often I need to refuel / how far can I get on a tank. As mentioned in my another reply, for me at least, it hasn't been a factor of where I live but variety of company I keep -- on average I'd say my Comsci/Sci-major friends don't do it. But I'm currently in Canada, where we do indeed as per stereotype, measure distance in units of time ("How far is your work?" "About 20 minutes" ComSciMajor response: "GAAACK!")

_ph_ 5y ago

Beyond the missing expensive infrastructure, the big problem is energy efficiency. Moving forward, we have to switch every energy production to renewables. But for the same amount of electric energy produced, an electric car gets about 3x the mileage than producing "green" hydrogen and powering fuel cell cars with it. Hydrogen means at least 3x the electricity cost and for many years to come, we are going to struggle producing enough clean electricity in the first place. Also the infrastructure for electricity basically is there, mostly needed are plain outlets at all long-term parking spots. And of course, one can charge an electric car from your own solar.

JPKab 5y ago
The key to a hydrogen economy will rely on creation of hydrogen in locations with extremely abundant electricity like Iceland. The next step is shipping it like it's LNG. Not a small order.
- danogentili 5y ago
  > The key to a hydrogen economy will rely on wasting energy on creation of hydrogen in locations with extremely abundant electricity. Honestly, this sounds just as bad as setting up bitcoin mines in places with high rates of renewables, to avoid directly throwing tons of CO2 in the atmosphere. Even if you have loads of clean energy, that's no reason to waste it when there are more efficient ways of using it (lithium batteries, PoS). Not to mention the fact that every watt of wasted green energy can't used to replace a watt of coal energy.
  - JPKab 5y ago
    I don't think there's a scarcity issue with electricity in places like Iceland where volcanic activity provides massive areas of land where electricity can be freely and easily generated. The issue is the ability to transport said electricity without massive losses.
  - mminer237 5y ago
    I don't think you can feasibly ship all your electric batteries to be charged up in Iceland.

toast0 5y ago

Feels like the infrastructure and on car issues are going to be similar to CNG, but worse. Need new fuel stations, high pressure storage, no existing delivery network (worse than CNG; although CNG pipelines are much lower pressure than vehicles need, so you needed a compressor at the fueling point); and the killer --- the vehicle tanks expire and replacement may not be economically feasible, in which case your car's value evaporates when the tank expires (generally 15 years after tank manufacture); this is what happened to most CNG cars.