It's going to take a lot of resources and money for the legacy makers, who have build their profits round the internal combustion engine, to transition to EVs. However, I don't worry about VW; they have money to burn witnessed by their dieselgate payoffs. I fear Ford is the one 'lost in EV space' and is incapable of changing with the times. EVs are simple, i.e., a battery, motor control and an electric motor...all the car makers will be able to build electric drive trains...it will be the added features that distinguish one EV from another. Falcon doors, online updates, track mode, driving assist, supercharging, map online updates, a frunk, etc. Tesla already offers EVs with these features and Ford must only build ICE Pickups and SUVs to stay in business, If Ford management was smart they would be trying to tie into Tesla's success with joint ventures. But, their egos will preclude rational behavior and in the end they will be crying for tax payer assistance for relief.

NYC should replace the trucks with electric drive asap. the use of any fuel burned in air, including biofuel, still pollutes.

Of the German majors, Daimler appears to be the leader in progressing toward building EVs. VW and BMW are still talking about it and dragging their feet to slow down the transition.

This should push the technology to great heights; everything in an airplane must be as efficient as possible,including the batteries...costly perhaps but only initially before the economics of scale take over and drive the costs down...Might be graphene in our future after all. How about a see-through wing stronger than steel and as flexible as carbon fiber, costing 10x less?(ha).

Interesting; almost enough to disconnect one's eyeballs.

Efficient yes; but, very nasty pollution wise. One offered alternative is to replace the house size diesel engines with LNG turbines that are much cleaner and smaller and allows for increased space...more cargo. which decreases the break even time. And, using diesel for new ships no longer makes good economic sense.

E-P: Agree; and, burning any carbon in air is the problem...no matter how you do it...jet engine, internal combustion engine, oil field flaring, biofuel, etc. There is already enough air pollution caused by nature without adding to it.

Drag racing is very dependent on what you use for power; how about a 3.5 second 1/4 mile?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lnEjOuQGBc

Meanwhile, In U.S. news: GM says when should start getting serious about EVs in about 2021, with Government assistance of course.

Another step toward a bright future with clean energy.

Nothing as obnoxious as a motorcycle with an illegal open exhaust; there are way too many on the roads and way too many people with faulty logic brains riding them.

This program would slow down the transition; for example; meeting the first goal in 2021...that's 3 years away...where do you think the German automakers will be by then? the Chinese?...Tesla? GM needs to get on with the transition and quit campaigning for slowdows. so they can continue to crank out obsolete, polluting ICEVs.

A lot of research and corporate activity among battery principles; some day one of them is gong to produce an economic battery so we can buy a decent $20,000 EV and punt the internal combustion engine into the weeds.

MB is leading the way in Germany;...a real positive to see them real world testing one off ETs. BTW, MB owns Freightliner in the U.S....all good to one day dump the obsolete diesels in the U.S.

Some of these old diesel buses smoke so badly and are so polluting they are child killing machines.

I like the term "Green Hydrogen" as oppose to "Brown Hydrogen" made from fossil fuels.

Ideal applications for EVs...tugs, mules, forklifts, short haul trucks, airport buses, etc., all make sense as EVs. And, BYD is leading the transition while the American companies think buying off politicians is a better tactic. In the short run this tactic may work; but, in the long run they lose.

dursun: Good Question...I think because they still leave the idea of a clean energy future out of their projections.

Regardless of how you use coal, as a liquid fuel, solid fuel or as feed stock, it is a damaging carbon pollutant. The gas, fly ash and mountains of residue are loaded with toxins. The last thing we need is liquid fossil fuels derived from coal; the whole idea behind cleaning up the World is to replace fossil chemicals with clean energy where possible, including coal.

Taxpayers pay subsidies to oil companies in the multi-billions for exploration, mining, and transportation; without which the American ICEV driver could not afford the fuel to drive; then, the taxpayer's fuel is taxed for roads and costs...they got'cha on both ends. This move by a coal country politician is another attempt by the paid campaigners for the fossil fuel industries to slow down their enemies, clean energy and electric vehicles.

D: All part of the campaign by oil and car companies to slow down the transition to clean energy...many of us have been fighting this for years. And, it's all the more reason people should get involved in propagating the truth and exposing the lies. You have the power of your voice to expose the liars, your money power to buy only clean energy products, i.e., EVs; and your vote to remove the fossil fuel republicans from power. Time to quit wringing your hands and step up.

Germany used 'wood gas' to run cars during WW2. Don't see a crying need for this chemistry today.

SJC: No proof; just an opinion and speculation. Why spend money on changing from diesel to natural gas? The money would be better spend on electric transportation.

There's a reason fuel is their biggest cost; there are so many benefits to an electric semi, I don't see anything but politics and deep seated bias keeping the major truck makers from switching over ASAP. Diesels semis shorten your life and kill your bank account.

Is this a waste of money or political payoffs...take your pick.