The better alternative to a mechanical differential is two electric motors controlled by computer vectoring; one driving each wheel...less losses. https://www.hindawi.com/journals/tswj/2014/523281/

2026 for your first EV?..and studying electric motor stuff that's already known?..Not in much of a hurry, are you?

Too bad they don't offer this deal to the 450,000 odd first generation Leaf buyers, all of who will need a second battery...that's a huge market.

Looks like the Chinese battery industry is doing well in developing their european market sector.

Watch as the clean energy move takes hold; the higher cost oil and gas fields will go bust first; that would be the Canadians.

There was a time when car makers spent time and money on designing and innovating; now they buy it in from parts suppliers; GM and Ford are becoming just car assembliers. Even their batteries are currently from Korea. The U.S. car makers are so driven by maintaining profits and the 'Status Quo,' they have lost their innovative edge and I expect they will go the way of British makers who no longer have a car industry. China will one day own the car industry as well as the battery industry.

The rest of the World is passing us by as we continue to vote the wrong political leadership into control of our destiny

Two small electric motors driving the rear wheels of vehicles instead of a motor, reduction gear and differential, is the way to go. Small energy dense motors, smaller SiC electronic controllers, inverters and sensors, plus removing the AC charger and moving to all external DC chargers are all economic and efficiency changes expected in the future for EVs. As these devices are reduced in size and need, space in the vehicle will increase... in the future perhaps all these devices will be produced as a single power module located in the rear of the car...Or, as modules directly connected to the wheel inside the hubs. It's exciting to see this all finally happening. I just hope GM and Ford survive the times and become less dependent on the politicians rescuing their companies.

In the 1900s hybrid cars were in as a transition alternative to battery electric cars until Ford and Rockefeller launched the ICEV industry and killed battery development. What we once thought as a progressive technology has in the long run, proven to be a detriment to Earth's society and the creation of discord between nations who have actually fought wars over hydrocarbon fuel. Perhaps the World would be a better place had electric transportation won the day. This time around, battery electric cars will displace the need for hybrids.

The win/win here is this gives the oil and gas companies a continuing role in the energy field by producing H2 by reforming HydroCarbons, hopefully at plants designed for zero emissions...the same holds true for burning H2 in sea ships instead of dirty oil. I hope the companies will improve this estimated schedule; it may take federal laws to get it done...real reasons to consider how and for whom you vote in the next election.

Once again, batteries are the enabling technology for solving the transition problems to sustainable clean energy. And, as the technology progresses, we can expect increases in capacity and power, along with a decrease in cost and size, which will be ongoing for decades...just like the in the semiconductor industry. This progression will lead the trucking industry to become a clean, economy entity and a partner to clean air advocacy rather than the gross polluter it is today.

Why generate it in the first place? Just switch off fossil fuels and you have no need for a second expensive process. Exxon will continue to do pretty much anything to 'keep on burning,' and polluting.

The idea is to use H2 in jet engines on the takeoff and climb out; then use fuel cells/electric motors for cruise and let downs. Nothing like that exists today or will ever happen unless those agencies and the elected politicians address aircraft pollution.

Well appreciated by those of us with knee problems.

The complication with EVs is the batteries. Unless one wants to deliberately make it complicated by over engineering and including ICEs. Battery technology has advanced to the point that MB should just flat out stop building ICEs and immediately switch to EVs...enough with continuing the complication of worthless hybrids.

Ah, at last something other than chin music happening at BMW.

A valiant attempt by a Trump controlled EPA to control emissions from blowtorches without doing anything significant. The only approach that will work to reduce the pollution and still allow jet engines as power devices is to redesign the fuel and the engine burner system as a unit. Perhaps switching to burning hydrogen is the answer. And, in this case, I would conceded creating the hydrogen from natural gas, fossil fuel. It's best to pollute at ground level than at 30,000 feet and continue to destroy the upper atmosphere. It's downright comical to see EPA trying to define smog and GHG standards to fit the current jet engines without downright grounding them. Jet engine are and always have been gross polluters...covering up this truth has been working for a long time by ignoring the problem.

With so many researchers now working on battery tech, I think a low cost, long range, high power battery is within reach. It's too bad the early car builders of the 1900s were so quick to abandon electric motors in favor of internal explosive engines. Had they continued the development of EVs, the World might have been a different place; perhaps even a better place where wars over oil economics never happened.

Hope VW can price their products lower when they sell in the U.S. Cost parity with ICE cars is essential to replacing fossil fuel usage.

LFP is a good replacement for lead acid batteries in everyday use, i.e., starter batteries, gate openers, EV 12 volt auxiliary power, etc. The pricing is still expensive for wide adoption; but, many predict this will change as lead continues to increase and LFP reduces production costs.

What's the efficiency of the entire process? None of these type processes approach the efficiency of electric vehicles and that's why they don't make sense.

Looks like Ford quit innovating and continues to buy technology instead; well, that's one way to save the company as long as the PU market holds up.

SJC: You are right! I've had my 2000 Toyota PU for 21 years and it still works great.

E-P: Good to see you are partially electric(ha).

H2 makes sense for Aircraft and Ships, not cars/trucks. Doesn't make sense for the health of the Planet unless the H2 is created from hydrolysis, not FF reforming by the pollution companies.