"Benchmark: Battery capacity to increase 4-fold by 2030 ......" That may be true for the "eternal yesterdays" but reality shows that Na-ion is replacing Li at a galloping pace because it is far cheaper, more abundant and safer; energy density is on par and due to increase in the next year or two.

@ Davemart: You're right about some of those points that you mentioned. What you forgot to mention, that FCs - when fed with green H2 - have an absolutely rotten overall efficiency. Whilst talking about psycopaths, when was the last time that you took a long enduring look in the mirror?

@ peskanov: It seems to me as though you are confusing Chinese research and manufacturing with Australien research and manufacturing.

@ mahonj: Back in 2007, I installed a 15 kWp PV-system on the roof of my house. At that time it was prohibitively expensive without really substantial financial support. I don't need all the power the system produces so the excess is fed into the grid. With the payback over the grid, I've been enjoying moderate power prices and still have sufficient power from the system to also power my BEV.

@ Herman; I had only 8 semesters of physics, chemistry and advanced math amongst other boring subjects. So probably in your estimation I'm not qualified to issue a valid statement concerning the topic of this thread. Nevertheless, I have an opinion that disagrees wholly with yours. First of all, E-Fuels, produced with renewables are prohibitively expensive and a waste of precious energy. They may be carbon neutral but in municipal areas this is completely irrelevant because all those well known emissions remain to douse all those living there. In rural areas this may be negligible because the pollutants are diluted. I need not to explain the first law of thermodynamics to you because apparently, you as well as Wissing, appear not only to know everything but also to know everything better. Chinese manufacturers do not produce any ICE vehicles anymore, only BEVs. Apparently they know which technolgy has a future. Batteries are improving almost daily and it will not be too far off until nothing leaves to be desired for their functionality. ICEs are a stone age relict so just let them RIP!

Wissing is one of the biggest morons among present German politicians and he proves that point once again.

https://www.energylivenews.com/2023/08/17/orsted-halts-ambitious-gigastack-uk-project-at-worlds-largest-offshore-wind-farm/ "Only fools rush in where sages fear to tread" It seems as though Orsted and Phillips 66 have gotten a bit wiser after thorough confrontation with reality .

At any rate, far better looking than SUV-Madness. Solid technique, acceptable range and a reasonable price will give the rest a run for their money.

"QuantumScape’s technology platform is designed to pair with a variety of cathode chemistries" This quoted statement has been posted repeatedly at different times. Personally, I'm convinced that QS's technological platform is unique and unparalleled. However, I'm also convinced that there are far better chemistry solutions than one based on Lithium chemistry. E.g. GMG's chemistry solution is based on Aluminum and Graphene and has proven to be far better than the solution employed by QS. Charging time is is 70x faster than any Lithium chemistry; Carbon and Aluminum are among the most abundant elements in the earths crust, are available everywhere and are far cheaper than Li. The absence of rare earth elements warrant independent supply of all cell components. GMG's solution enables more than 4000 charging cycles. I would certainly welcome a cooperation between QS and GMG.

@ Davemart: Ever hear of a pantograph? You don't need a continuous overhead line; just a section long enough to assure a power boost to sustain to the next section. H2 will never be competitive on a economical basis.

Apparently, Plana is completely ignorant of the progress that has been achieved with toroidal propeller designs.

Fossil fuel technology or any newly created solution based on those principles is supported from advocates of "dead end streets". Some baffled individuals are truly overwhelmed from the "triple B principle.

I would question the location of the brake discs. It appears that they are all else than maintenance friendly.

".....with a capacity of 160 mAh/g...." "...amounting to 150 Wh/kg....." 1 kg is equivalent to 1000 grams, a factor of 10³. A mAh is equivalent to one thousandth of one kWh. What now? Which one of the two quoted expressions is correct?

"One could make the same comments regarding the electricity supply industry" I assume from your line of reasoning that because Putin is a mass-murder it's OK to murder without fearing any consequences.

@ Davemart: "This is to confuse leakage and inefficiencies, which....." When considering all the calamities occurring in the past with raw oil production (off-shore oil rigs, oil tankers, pipe lines etc. etc.) resulting from negligence, carelessness, ignorance, stupidity, greed and profit dreaming, are you really convinced that all this will change overnight when the same idiots switch to an H2 based industry??? If you believe that, then you are really a fantastic day dreamer.

It'll be far worse than CO2.

Shell has defined the H2-folly as an economic disaster and as a consequence has shut down all of its' H2-stations in the UK. https://www.electrive.com/2022/10/18/shell-quietly-closes-all-hydrogen-filling-stations-in-the-uk/

I have a definite preference for storing surplus electric energy in a manner that has a low environmental impact, is cheap and safe, has high energy density, is fast charging and has a long cycle life as compared against H2(Methane) with all its negative attributes.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_carbon_battery https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8V3q7n39E58

Just another cheese box mounted on wheels.

@ mahonj: In my personal opinion, (green) hydrogen is nothing more than a scam; it's highly inefficient, completely uneconomical, difficult to handle and extremely volatile. Better off, waiting for a miracle.

'There is more than just one way to skin a cat.' Li-ion and rare elements is just one method of many possible configurations. Instead of sticking to a 'bad' example why not resort to something far more effective, cheaper, safer, faster charging, more energy dense, high cycle life, and far more abundant. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySfhRyGASpA

@ peskanov: 'However, I am still hoping and waiting for Na-ion or other alternatives ....' It seems as those influencing technology have one-track minds. When J. Goodenough presented his Li-solution everyone worldwide pounced upon it as though it were the ultimate solution and 'good-enough'; before that it was lead-acid. I've been keeping tabs on GMG (Aluminum & Graphene), Quantumscape, and Prieto for some years. Quantumscape's tech platform is - in my opinion - excellent and beats all else. Personally, I would like to see a solution based on QS's tech platform and GMG's chemistry; that would be fast, cheap, safe, and light. What more could anyone want?

@ mahonj: 'I don't buy making H2 from electrolysis and then running it.....' Congrat's, I can assert your opinion to 100%; not only the total inefficiency of an H2 solution but its' high volatility is many times worse than that of CO2 when emitted to the atmosphere. It's best not to tamper with it. I could imagine a Prieto-Battery of several Megawatts, constantly being fed from the grid, could release sufficient high power discharge to charge a 60 - 100kWh battery in a few minutes without any negative effects on the grid.

I had a look at several of them. I also skimmed over NASA's ionic thrusters used for maneuvering satellites. They have a lot in common. I can also recall how Elon Musk was scoffed at and ridiculed by all the 'experts' worldwide when he introduced his first BEV. Apparently he's having the last laugh.