The architecture of this cell is simply intriguing and astonishing. I'd bet it'll become a trend setter.

@ Peter Watch the market for launches of exciting battery technologies next year: Prieto, EMBATT, and INNOLITH. The products of all three have been tested and validated; a revolution is on its way. High voltage charging as presented from Porsche is the cherry on top or all four combined are targeting in to kill the ICE,

VW lies again. "Expected power consumption totals 12.7 kWh/100 km." The capacity of the battery is given with 32.3 kWh. 32.3 kWh:12.7kWh = 2.5433x100 = 254 km total range and not 260 km; more than likely even less than the theoretical calculated value.

We should not be talking about what could, may or might be but refer to current SOA possibilities. Current electrolyzers reach an efficiency of approx. 70% at standard ambient room temp.. Waste heat (up to 80° C) tied into this process results in a negligible increase of overall efficiency. A considerable boost in efficiency is reached with additional temperatures around 700 to 800° C; such temperatures are by no means achieved as waste and lower the overall system efficiency.

What is never considered when comparing ICEs, BEVs, PHEVs etc. etc. is the complete system efficiency and the complete infrastructure. 1) E. g. the search for potential oil supplies via planes or satellites causes emissions and there are plenty fruitless searches. 2) Once a potential location is found, a test rig is erected to determine pressure and temperature and other parameters of a prospective well. If the results are satisfactory, then oil production can commence. 3) Transportation of crude oil via pipeline, trucks or tankers causes emissions. 4) The iron ore that is mined and "cooked" to steel uses immense amounts of energy for producing the rigs, pipelines, oil platforms and ocean-going-vessels and is the cause of uncountable emissions. 5) When crude oil has finally arrived at the refinery further emissions occur until usable fuels and other products are derived. 6) The distribution of the various fuels from the refinery - independent of the selected transportation mode - to the fuelling stations needs energy and is the cause of further emissions. 7) When an ICE is finally filled up at the fuelling station, the emissions-party really begins. When all the emissions - that result in points 1 - 7 - are added together, then and only then you'll have a true representation of ICE emissions. With a true representation, ICEs will lose any comparison with an EV by miles and more.

The design of this prototype will not exactly boast of efficiency. I've seen several new all electric designs that have a far higher promise of efficiency than this. Just old technology in new wrappings.

Perhaps a Mg-Li alloy electrode might lead to improved performance?

Anyone endowed with just a little bit of common sense - who has driven at least a thousand miles with a BEV - will never again be tempted to flirt with an ICE or anything related to it.

@ Lad: Apparently, they're really getting desperate; aren't they.

Absolutely no interest in a revival of the stone age.

Ridiculous? H2 is the smallest known molecule; it'll diffuse through anything / everything. It is the "escape artist" among the elements. The higher the storage pressure, the higher and faster the losses will be. The current- and highly polluting method of generating H2 is accomplished by cracking NG. CO2 is emitted to the atmosphere and is not cleaner than emitting CO2 via a combustion process. H2 generation via electrolysis is emissions neutral but has an efficiency of 70% or 30% losses. I suspect that overall system-losses of H2 via pipeline will be far higher than system losses of high voltage DC transmissions.

What effect does this innovative technology have on emissions / polution? Anyone?

Actually, the difference between revealing a partial truth and telling a lie is not all to great. A partial truth intentionally leads someone to misinterpretation and more than likely to a false conclusion. The initiator can always point out that he never told a lie - but alas - was falsely understood, even though the primary intention was to be misinterpreted. Such "verbal fencing" is not an asset of e. g. our POTUS; he just lies point blank.

Personally, I'm convinced that the stone age was not succeeded by the bronze age for lack of stones. The ICE will be succeeded by electric drives no matter how desperate fundamentalists cling to their "stone axes". The simplicity and efficiency of an electric motor (EM) with full torque from the first rotation is unsurpassed. The EM shatters anything (with two exceptions) that an ICE may offer; it doesn't stink and its silent. The only sore point of current electric drives is the battery; range and charging time. In 2020, three manufacturers are emerging on the market with different cell chemistries. However, two attributes are common to all three: high power charge and discharge and range over 600 miles and that at less mass and volume and reduced prices. I'm looking forward not backwards.

EMBATT is aiming for mass production next year. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_glx79wJyE

Well, Trump won't be in office forever; at the most another 4 yr. term and that is almost too much for that FBI.

@ Lad The additional weight is negligible; the last diesel I had ( over 200,000 mi. never needed oil exchange, merely had to check the oil level in the transmission; complexity and increased cost is more than balanced with the benefits for the battery. "Do you really need this for a street car designed for point to point transportation?" You probably don't but I and plenty others would.

Harvey, you’re projecting an almost pessimistic POV. I'm convinced that by 2025 your forecasted achievements will have been reached.

For overall performance, two gears are better than one; three gears would be even better. A tranny not only matches the revs of the motor to the speed of the vehicle, it also functions as a torque converter. The higher the gear reduction the higher the resulting torque will be at the tranny output. It does not matter too much if only one occupant is in the vehicle. However when the vehicle is fully occupied, the mass to be accelerated increases considerably. The electric motor itself, with or without a tranny will draw the current from the battery necessary to overcome the mass resistance of the total load. The higher the mass to be accelerated the higher the current burden will be. It's not exactly beneficial for the battery to endure high current peak-draws even if only for short durations. IOW, a tranny is beneficial for the life duration of a battery. If a trailer should be hitched to an EV, the beneficial impact will be even greater. For anyone driving his EV only solo can disregard a tranny with ease of mind.

Nuclear fusion is inherently safe which nuclear fission is not. Availability of nuclear fuel is not unlimited. In the past it was believed that oil would last forever; we now know (emissions not considered) that it was nothing more than a fairy tale and a bad one at that. Abe Lincoln coined the following fitting phrase, "you can fool some of the people all the time, you can fool all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all the time".

Ford has cooperated with VW in the past, so why not now?

@ Davemart Innolith claims a life expectancy for their cells =/> 50,000 cycles. Their pilot project on the Maryland grid excels above all other competitors.

Well, I'd think it depends were you intend to apply the lipstick; in the front or rear.

There are other innovations, based on solid electrolytes, preparing to launch to market that offer more energy density, less weight and lower cost. E. g.: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_glx79wJyE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAg_8iCLIIw

@ Peter_XX Not quite correct. The first law of thermodynamics, also known as the "Law of Conservation of Energy and Matter", states that neither energy or matter can be created nor destroyed; energy or matter can only be changed or transferred from one form to the other. In modern physics you don't even have to differentiate between energy and matter because i.a.w. Einstein's equation E=MxC² everything is energy. Of course it cannot be ignored that over time some of these emissions will react chemically with others and change their properties either for the better or the worse.