What is complex about a two - or even three gear DCG in the sight of all the obvious advantages to be gained?

Well, it's really not that surprising. Tesla started the "bandwagon" for electric drives and their initial attempt at a two-speed tranny was a flop. They had excellent expertise as far as electronics and electrics were concerned but lacked entirely the necessary knowledge for encompassing mechanical engineering. The big advantage of a transmission is the immense torque available to get a relatively high mass moving without taking huge gulps of current at the disadvantage of the battery. I.o.w. the transmission eases wear and tear on the battery and is life-prolonging on same.

"Each individual cell has a current of roughly 4 volts. " Hmm! It may have been a long time ago since I learned the basics of electrical engineering but to my knowledge current is still expressed in Amperes.

I'm convinced that Trump and his a...ole buddies will certainly find a "hole" in the PtG innovation because coal is more of a solid investment than a volatile synthesized gas.

The triple C / CCC (criminal chaotic clown) also known as Trump with his cronies, including Pruitt, are slowly but surely ruining the reputation and economic foundation of a once proud and powerful country.

@ Roger Pham "You're obviously reading from a script and having zero experience with Hydrogen. When I was a kid, " Have you progressed any further since...? I'm proud to say that I had the opportunity to study 6 semesters of chemistry and 8 semesters of Physics even though I majored in electronics. My mental recesses have certainly dusted with time but I'm certainly far from being senile. I suggest that you speak for yourself and don't hold others to be dumber than you are yourself.

@ Davemart: I assume that the specifications you are referring to are as reliable as the diesel specifications of VW.

No, I'm not confusing H with He. H has one proton at its core and one orbiting electron. He has Two protons and two neutrons and two orbiting electrons. H2 is the molecular designation of hydrogen. Hydrogen as an atom or molecule is the smallest element known. Its atomic weight of one (1) is the standard of reference to all other elements. Due to its small size, Hydrogen will diffuse through any container no matter of what material such a container maybe comprised of. The only matter that can absolutely encapsulate Hydrogen is Graphene. The lattice dimension of Graphene is so small that not even Hydrogen pass through it. A Graphene liner inside a carbon composite would definitely confine Hydrogen. A minor remaining problem would be the seal of an injection and extraction valve.

Hydrogen is the most efficient "escape artist" among all known gaseous elements. Put it under pressure and it'll disappear evermore quickly into the surroundings. The only way to keep it in bondage is to confine it within a cryogenic tank and that is heavy and awful expensive. The only reasonable solution is to combine it chemically with atmospheric CO2 as methane similar to NG; in this form it can be stored reasonably well. But then a reformer is needed to make it compliable to FCs (reduced to H2) or use a FC that can be fed with gas directly. Everything else is daydreaming and wishful fancies. An H2 infrastructure is abhorrently expensive.

Indeed, this can be described shortly as improvement and progress.

@ EP: Li will always be more advanced than any other upcoming technology. It has been around nigh unto 30 years and is getting scarcer and hence tendentiously more expensive. It's time to be replaced by something better and more abundant.

Solid Power would be wise to abandon Lithium in their quest for a solid state battery; Magnesium is a far better alternative. Lithium and Magnesium are members of the same family. However, Magnesium has two valence electrons but Lithium only one. Hence, the theoretical energy density of Magnesium is twice as high as that of Lithium. Magnesium is far less volatile than Lithium and therefore, safer. 1.4 % of the earth's crust is comprised of magnesium and far more abundant and cheaper than Lithium. Sulphur is a good candidate as a cathode material for both Mg or Li. The chemical reaction problems are inherent to both chemistries. So why indulge effort and finance in a technology less promising?

Keep up the excellent work; I'm sure it'll lead to fruition in the end.

@Davemart Have you taken note of this yet? https://www.autoblog.com/2017/11/13/fisker-has-filed-patents-for-solid-state-batteries/

Statistically, renewables are more than just competitive - as far as price, efficiency, ecology and availability are concerned - compared to fossils (not to mention NPPs). All of us are so adapted to wasting energy at the expense of our environment that we have grown blind to what is actually happening around us. Hardly anyone considers that established forms of energy production have had time for over a century to develop. It is not possible to close that time gap with renewables within a few years. Trump and associates are wasting that valuable time to make the a. m. time gap ever more critical. Trump and his hand-picked cronies are mentally retarded Neanderthals that wish to make the stone age great again. They are not only an embarrassment for this once great nation but rather for the whole of humanity.

@ sd: Considering the overall efficiency of H2-production via REs including losses incurred at storage you'll end up below 20%. That is a pure waste of energy no matter how cheap REs will manage to be in the future.

H2 is the "escape artist" among the gaseous elements. It'll diffuse through glass, ceramics, SST, carbon- fibreglass composites etc. The higher the storage pressure, the faster and higher the losses will be. There is only one material that definitely confines H2: Graphene. The problems with a graphene storage tank are: a) horribly exoensive b) the insertion / extraction valves are the weak spot for leakage. A viable but expensive solution would be to chemically bind H2 with atmospheric CO2 to synthesize methane gas identical to NG. That would require a FC suited for gas combustion. The overall efficiency would be disgusting.

@ mahonj: Mobile application of a FC without a battery is an absolutely no-go. A battery can definitely operate without a FC but not vice versa.

@ Davemart: The image at the near top of the article depicts three variables - 1, 2 and 3. Look at V 2 (Hi Nickel) and you will see "NCM 811 and others" Discharge Capacity 185 Ah / kg @1C etc. etc..

H2 FCs are completely unsuited for application of EVs. The "well to wheels" efficiency is so horribly inefficient that its just a waste of time to even contemplate on it. The presently most economical method of H2 production is cracking NG, which in no way alleviates environmental pollution; employing electrolysis to produce H2 from H2O (water) is a waste of energy resources. A non-subsidized 100kW H2 FC is more expensive than a complete BEV with the same power rating. Additionally, H2 is an "escape artist" and cannot be stored without diffusion losses; the higher the pressure of the storage contrivance, the more rapid and higher the losses. An FC vehicle, scheduled for corrective maintenance, underlies time consuming preparation (expensive). For safety reasons, the pressure of the stored H2 must be at or below 500 PSI. A fresh fill at a station to 800 PSI must be reduced accordingly. All the pipes, valves etc. targeted for inspection must be flushed with nitrogen (inert) before pertinent work can be initiated. Who pays for all this? Of course all the H2 enthusiasts! Or maybe your friendly FC MFR?

Apropos fresh water; the oceans have been trumped. There's supposedly more garbage floating in the oceans than fish swimming in them. I.o.w. what is the difference between garbage and Trump?

Presently, our household is supplemented with two cars, a Yaris diesel and a Nissan Leaf. With two exceptions - range and design - my preference is definitely for the Leaf. With the market launch expected for September this year, the new gen. Leaf will replace both present vehicles. I can't understand why so many bank on fossil fuel guzzlers; as far as I am concerned, those vehicles belong to the stone age and that is history.

When the saying - "fools rush in where angels fear to tread" - was coined, I wonder if that certain person had a glimpse of the future as it is now being practised by Trump?

The problem could be bypassed completely if they'd implement an electrically driven turbocharger.

@ peter XX I beg to differ. In their true physical nature, the real cost of EVs is far lower than ICEs. The high prices are the result of small series production; mass production would lower an EV price below that of an ICE. Manufacturers of ICEs are used to a certain margin of profit which they can not achieve with a low priced EV. To reach that margin, the effective price is simply increased respectively.