Personally, I prefer the free floating piston design (FKLG) from Fraunhofer because its ideally suited for a serial hybrid drive with an overall efficiency over 50%. No connecting rods and no crankshaft just "gas springs" at each end; it runs on H2 and is also adaptable to various fossil fuels. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pBPw33ceoQ

Back in 1975, during the second oil crisis, I'd suggested a serial hybrid and was scoffed and ridiculed and was informed that something like that would never work.

It's truly amazing what engineering skills manage to achieve just to keep a stone age relict alive.

It's not that far off; it'll come far sooner. https://www.ikts.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ikts/abteilungen/energiesysteme_bio_medizintechnik/mobile_energiespeicher_elektrochemie/zellkonzepte/Zellauslegung_Validierung_Testzellen/RS32883_IKTS_453_P_EMBATT.pdf https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_glx79wJyE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7uS9_bUg-E

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7uS9_bUg-E

I'm eagerly awaiting the announcement of EMBATT - a merger of various German companies - to scale up to mass production. Their lab prototypes have fulfilled expectations and final product should revolutionize the market considering energy and power density as well as pricing. https://www.ikts.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ikts/abteilungen/energiesysteme_bio_medizintechnik/mobile_energiespeicher_elektrochemie/zellkonzepte/Zellauslegung_Validierung_Testzellen/RS32883_IKTS_453_P_EMBATT.pdf https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_glx79wJyE

I've been driving different BEVs for several years; the worst of those was the Leaf. Presently )'m driving a BEV with a range of ca. 300 miles in the summer. That leaves me about 200 miles in the winter and suits me just fine. I've never fast-charged any of my BEVs because presently no battery on the market is compatible to fast-charging without detrimental depreciation. I've never experienced range problems, not even with the lousy Leaf. Considering my age, I'm what you would probably call an "old geezer" and I do have a mind of my own. Personally, I need a PHEV as direly as I need a hole in my head.

Clinging desperately to yesterday and yesteryear is not going to prepare us for a bearable future.

Facts that speak against PHEVs are the following: a) Lugging around all that extra needless mass of the ICE while in E-mode increases energy consumption. b) The ICE reduces otherwise available space and complicates distribution of available space. c) Increases the overall size of the vehicle. d) When in ICE mode, operational pollution continues. e) Preventive and corrective maintenance of the ICE is rather expensive. f) Overall pollution of the complete fossil cycle continues. g) Hampers the development of better battery cells and improvement of our environment etc. etc..

@ sd: Carbon could be used for production of Graphene; Graphene is slowly replacing silicon ranging from semi-conductors up to concrete reinforcement for replacement of steel. There's virtually no limit for Graphene applications.

Employing renewable energy to produce H2 via electrolysis has an extremely low overall efficiency and subsequently, is a pure waste of energy. It is highly recommendable to use that energy for a far more efficient process e. g. charging a battery. If it must be H2, then produce it without wasting precious energy; e. g. https://lighthouse.mq.edu.au/article/september2/designer-bacteria-could-fuel-the-future-with-cheap-hydrogen

For many US-Americans (too many) the world begins and ends at the continental borders of the US. Most are unaware of the fact that when referring to America most people worldwide relate that expression to the two continents constituting America namely, North- and South America. The US is located on the North American continent together with Canada. The US is a part of the NA-continent and is not America itself. Using the term America when meaning the US is a sign of over-boarding and exaggerated confidence not meant to imply a certain arrogance. Electrify America is a great slogan but for the present it would suffice to limit that to "Electrify the US".

A battery-cell with a high energy density implicates a massive shift on the atomic level. Ions being shuttled back an forth whilst charging and discharging constitute such a shift. The contraction and expansion rate of silicon electrodes is inherently high. Subsequently, an electrode capable of high energy density compounds the expansion / contraction rate. This inherent attribute of silicon renders it insufficient as an electrode despite it's attractive energy density potential.

@ Paroway: Well, Tesla is in a completely different boat. They have the great advantage that they're not confronted with the task of transitioning from ICE-vehicle production to EVs; that switch is a considerable disadvantage for conventional MFRCs. Besides that, Tesla's existence is not sponsored from welfare and moral obligations / philosophies. They burned millions of dollars until they finally started to reach profitable levels.

I'm convinced that, generally, the high price of EVs is not based solely on the relative high price of a battery. Car MFRCs have a low margin of profit on conventional ICE vehicles. Their (blind) profits are based on spare parts and maintenance philosophy. In comparison, an EV has very low maintenance and subsequently lacks those avenues of profit. I can't imagine that any MFRC would be satisfied with these inevitable results. One way to "iron that out" would be to slap those missing profits right unto the sales price and that makes EVs really expensive.

This enhanced safety feature is a welcome contribution to safer driving in contrast to higher acceleration and increasing top speeds.

Another possibility could be a launching ramp with a low incline that after 1000 - 1500 mtrs. would be 20 - 30 mtrs. above ground level where upon departure of same the plane would be airborne.

@ mahonj: That's common procedure on aircraft carriers; they just don't use cables. On an airfield, linear 3-P e-motors - fed from the grid (via a buffer) - could be used for initial acceleration.

VW's priority is second life; if the benchmark for this purpose is missed, the batteries will be recycled.

That would certainly be a welcome introduction in the EV market. Even better would be the product described in the following if ... if all those claims could be trusted. https://www.graphenano.com/en/la-primera-planta-de-baterias-de-grafeno-del-mundo-en-espana/

Sorry to disagree with you but the term as used is quite correct. Part of the energy invested to accelerate the vehicle induces potential energy in the vehicle mass. Recovery of such potential energy via an appropriate "braking mode" certainly is recuperation.

"Researchers found that installing charging stations on residential streets, rather than just in central locations such as shopping malls ...." Presently, residential streets are clogged up sufficiently with "lantern parkers"; this kind of solution would encourage ever more so and hence, impede local traffic. Not so good.

The cheapest way for OPEC and big oil to produce H2 is sequestration from fossils. The rest of humanity carries the major part of the final bill.

As a former employee of Siemens, I can verify that it took the company far too long to depart from conventional power generation. It is satisfying to see them performing a switch to means of renewables.

I have the impression that most EV builders are building cars for the race track and not for every day usage on the road. I'm convinced that a vehicle with two motors at 50 to 60 kW each, suited for AWD, with an acceleration time of 0 - 60mph in 10 sec. or slightly below, would do just fine. At any rate, I place more emphasis on range than acceleration.