I wonder if launching billionaire space rides is necessary. While the rest of us work on stabilizing the world's climate and reducing fossil fuel contamination, the rich delight in tourist orbits around Earth . I have no problem if the fuel is hydrogen; however, that's usually not the case.

This was proposed by Nissan, and others, ten years ago; but, was mostly PR because batteries were far from robust enough to operate in such an environment. Perhaps today there are chemistries that will work, E.g., LFP batteries.

Airliners and cargo ships have gotten a free ride so far; it's way past time for them to start cleaning up their operations. I would like to see some investments in moving off fossil fuels.

As defined by the electromotive metals table, lithium was a good starting point for selecting an battery element b/c it has the highest potential difference between other elements and has an available valence electron. However, Sodium is very close behind. And as we know sodium also is more abundant than Lithium. Hopefully this will lead to cheaper, more energy dense battery chemistry. As stated by Gryf, a Na Ion battery using another abundant element, E.g., Sulfur(S), could revolutionize the storage industry, pricewise. It will be interesting to see where we are this time next year, With the amount of research going on, something great is bound to occur in battery technology.

Looks like we took our eyes off the ball for too long at time. The President is wise to continue our Chinese importation decoupling efforts that were starting by the last administration when Trump implemented a tariff on Chinese goods, up to of 25%. I think 'catchup' money so American industry can compete in the international market place is a more positive approach. However. missing from the list is rare earth minerals where China produces most of the World's supply.

The upside of Solar, Wind and Geothermal, is the fuel is free and local; Using fuel based electricity generation, including nuclear plants is dependent on a fuel supplier and that can be a large downside. These technologies, and their companion Battery Technology, are continuing to be at the forefront of development and some believe will in the long run displace the other generation technologies. I'm not against nuclear energy generation, just fearful that it's safe operation in the hands of error-prone human designers and operators. In any case the idea of creating and storing H2 using surplus electricity makes good environmental sense, if it can be accomplished.

Makes a lot of sense: Utility companies running their trucks on their own created fuel, electricity. Cutting out the use of $6 a gallon diesel fuel alone should save them a pile. This is a long overdue idea.

Can't help but wonder what the ICE related companies will do when EV demand displaces the sales of gassers. Seems to me there will be little need to concentrate on emissions reduction.

None of this hurts if you drive an electric vehicle. Looks as if the FF industry is having a field day increasing prices.

methanol must be tightly contained if you use it directly b/c it is a powerful GHG when released into the atmosphere.

This article points out the huge amount of energy required for shipping; and, as an unintended consequence it describes between the lines what a terrible gross pollution problem the current shipping industry represents. A gross pollution problem that so far has been largely ignored.

Perhaps $5 gas will cause this percentage to increase closer to 100%. Imagine a California where there is no more smog in the Summer; Bur, alas, I dream!

Gryf: The argument is BEVs don't have the range and charging the batteries is time consuming...that's now; but, with today's huge interest and active research in advancing battery technology, I would expect this would no longer be the case by the end of the decade or before...It may be wise and less costly in the long run to move into BEVs now and accept this deficiency, knowing there will be improvement all along the way. Driving ICEVs will surely become more expensive as the demand for fossil fuel decreases and the makers produce fewer ICE vehicles. The oil companies have alway raised prices at any opportunity, as will the vehicle makers to continue profitability during the transition period.

Gryf: The argument is BEVs don't have the range and charging the batteries is time consuming...that's now; but, with today's huge interest and active research in advancing battery technology, I would expect this would no longer be the case by the end of the decade or before...It may be wise and less costly in the long run to move into BEVs now and accept this deficiency, knowing there will be improvement all along the way. Driving ICEVs will surely become more expensive as the demand for fossil fuel decreases and the makers produce fewer ICE vehicles. The oil companies have alway raised prices at any opportunity, as will the vehicle makers to continue profitability during the transition period.

No matter how; when you burn carbon in air, you produce GNG and smog...BEVs fueled by solar, wind and ground based steam electricity... Don't!

The prices for most BEVs are still too high and will take time to reach parity with ICEVs. This will come in time as the development of traction batteries progresses. Perhaps someday a NaS battery will be created and because of the low materials cost this will result in a significant reduction in the price of BEVs.

Don't understand how drivers who can afford EVs, continue buying and driving gassers when they know the lying oil companies are jacking up their prices at every opportunity and hosing them at the pumps.

Not a good move; but, it shows how successful the fossil fuel lobby has been in convincing U.S. drivers to continue driving dirty gassers. The U.S. may be the last large country to transition to BEVs because of this successful misinformation campaign.

MB gets it, VW gets it, BMW...well! not so much!

I see the cure for this is an EV that low income drivers can afford. The $7.5k fed incentive is an attempt to offset the high EV startup costs; but, because during high demand, as like now, the car maker adds this incentive into the price of the car so that indirectly it's becomes a $7.5 K addition to his profit margin. What's needed is a twenty thousand dollar EV family sedan, without the incentives, and the guy who can get it to market will become another Henry Ford. And, Regardless! It's time to take off all the stops and let nothing stand in the way; the welfare of everyone on the Planet is at stake, even the fossil fuel Republicans.

The beauty of electric trucks is how you provide the traction motor electrons is variable. It can be from batteries(BEV), an engine generator(hybride) or microreactor(nuclear), whichever you choose.

The heaviest component of BEVs is the battery; and if, as some predict, the traction battery energy density doubles within the decade (goes from 240 Wh/Kg to 500 Wh/Kg) this newly found 'lightness' will serve to enhance performance in race cars and lower the costs of personal transportation. Perhaps parity with the cost of ICE cars will come more quickly than expected.

@Gdb: Agree! Seems all the Japanese legacy makers are following the same logic; Sell ICEVs as long as people will buy them and can be pushed into gassers.; Even Nissan who has sold 165,000 in the U.S. since 2011, just started seriously moving toward producing new designs.

H2 is 11 times worse on the atmosphere than CO2; https://newatlas.com/environment/hydrogen-greenhouse-gas/ H2 for ground transportation makes no sense; me think behind every one of these projects is a big oil connection pushing for reforming H2 from raw methane.

Why are we shelling out Taxpayer money to solve old problems on obsolete devices? Why are we not electrifying the trains instead?