I found the answer, and it looks like they are getting it very close to being cheap enough to work:

"Two things have prevented major production of hydrogen-powered cars until now: the cost, and producing the hydrogen in the first place. Until recently, the platinum catalyst that splits the hydrogen into an ion and an electron has been prohibitively expensive.

Up to a few years ago, hydrogen fuel cells cost around $1000 for every kilowatt of power they generated – or around $100,000 per car. There were various avenues of research into how to bring the cost down, including work at Lawrence Berkley Laboratories on replacing the platinum catalyst with a platinum-nickel alloy that was 90 times more efficient.

By last year, US Department of Energy reported that it had got the cost down to $61 per kilowatt – far closer to the target cost of $30. One further possibility being explored by Ballard Power Systems is enhancing the platinum with carbon silk. This is expected to bring a 30% reduction in cost with no loss of performance."

Ahem! Excuse me sir, but I prefer to identify as "Fucking Canadian Pain in the Ass!" if you don't mind. :D


No one here is. I like to think I'm well read when it comes to science, but overall no one here is a scientist, or a politician, etc. We are all people with opinions and keyboards to CAPS-POST at people about. :)

It is. It's everywhere, but the process of making hydrogen into something to generate electricity is still pricey, as is the infrastructure to deliver it, etc etc.

Interesting..! and Ballard Power is a name I haven't heard in a long time. Glad to see they are still at this.

The submarine I was on that was built in the 60's used a process that used electrolysis to separate hydrogen from oxygen in water that we had previously purified for drinking and secondary water for the reactor from sea water. As the hydrogen had no use to us, it was simply pumped overboard using a defuser so no bubbles were generated and the O2 was stored in tanks. I say this because this was technology from the late 60's . Was on that sub in the late 70's and breathed in that O2.

Toyota is all in.https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN1KG0Y0

Yes it is the most abundant in the universe. We live here on earth.
Look at your oceans. Pour some tap water.
Going to burn that in your furnaces ? Your car ?
Hydrogen does not 'BURN' without oxygen. That's why HHO makes sense.
If it were abundantly 'cheap' we wouldn't be using fossil fuel at all.
Call you local weld shop and ask how much for a compressed cylinder !
(the only form you might buy it in)
On second thought, don't since you will unlikely be able to understand or equate how much volume you are getting to compare to costs of methane or propane.
But you can look at it by btu content.

@ 300btu per hr per cubic foot, it has no where the punch of methane @ 1000btu hr or propane @ 92k btu per gallon of liquid but now you have to equate that to cf gas.
It is lighter than air at a atomic weight of just 1 so it's not like you can just suck a bunch up at ground level. But it can be separated by vacuum.
It is the cost of breaking it down to just hydrogen. As compared to drilling a whole in the ground and piping it for methane.
Charging de-ionized water by solar electric is the cheapest way to make Hydrogen. Takes a lot of real estate to make a bunch via solar.

Lots of hopeful dreams were put forward when hydrogen fuels cells were making a market. (Not the same as just burning hho in your car) But it's the cost of production AND distribution that hinders it.
Definitely the cleanest and smartest but not effective yet in today's world.

Aye Robbie, where can I find you on Spotify? I need some new ear candy in my life.

The methods are nearly the same now. Just slightly more efficient. Not much though.
Yes, when you charge the water that needs to be de-ionized or de-mineralized you get the hydrogen collecting on one electrode side and the oxygen collecting on the other side electrode.
You must have been on a nuclear trident capable of staying under for months.

They could have made use of the hydrogen, but the cost and space on the sub was to costly. Not to mention additional hazards. But I do wonder how they dispersed the hydrogen without making much noise, which you know is a bad thing.
I will guess and say they spread it to tiny outlets spread across the entire length of the hull and perhaps only released it after crossing thermal layers or right at them.

I am hopeful this gets going. You know folks are going to fight it and try to create things that will run the cost of it up. But it will bring competition. Especially if the show they are making money at it.

But it will bring the cost of the fuel cell down so I might afford to use one to power my solar powered house. And make hydrogen with my existing solar array.
It's just a more efficient method to store the hydrogen without loss like batteries and no hassles from the power co trying to use grid tie inverters.
Been trying to 'cut the wire' for 25 years.
Costs me $16 monthly just to be connected to the grid. More if you want grid-tie/net-metering. Plus a bunch or other costly requirements and they want to charge me a delivery cost of what I pump back into the grid !

They are going to steal their way to no customers. But only if we have alternatives.

As I said in a earlier post in this thread, fuel cell powered electrics will be the norm in 8 years, but most here in the US will be powered by methane fuel cells. It's just cheaper all the way around, for now anyhow. There are already networks of CNG fuel stations.

BMW and GM has a program as well, but I have not herd much about them lately.
That will probably change soon enough. But it is smart to let others help build-out the fuel distribution systems and arrive at market after that has been established.
I can imagine California and NY being the first to have them in the US anyway.

Honda has this NOW
https://automobiles.honda.com/clarity-fuel-cell

Did you happen to see this part in my last post? And what do you think of that:

"Two things have prevented major production of hydrogen-powered cars until now: the cost, and producing the hydrogen in the first place. Until recently, the platinum catalyst that splits the hydrogen into an ion and an electron has been prohibitively expensive.

Up to a few years ago, hydrogen fuel cells cost around $1000 for every kilowatt of power they generated – or around $100,000 per car. There were various avenues of research into how to bring the cost down, including work at Lawrence Berkley Laboratories on replacing the platinum catalyst with a platinum-nickel alloy that was 90 times more efficient.

By last year, US Department of Energy reported that it had got the cost down to $61 per kilowatt – far closer to the target cost of $30. One further possibility being explored by Ballard Power Systems is enhancing the platinum with carbon silk. This is expected to bring a 30% reduction in cost with no loss of performance."

The cost of a fuel cell and the cost of producing and distributing hydrogen.
They are 2 matters that effect this being a consumer staple.

First you should know it takes 80 kilowatts to power a small car. about 90-120 for a mid-sized sedan. 140-190 for a pick-up/suv. (somewhat close as the weight keeps changing as they make newer models)
So take that cost per kilowatt and multiply based on the data you have shown. I have not seen that myself but something similar but not the same and that was a few years ago.

The DOE does not make cells nor do R&D on them. Companies do.
So, I'm not sure who 'they' are.
But you are probably looking at the cost to make (without profit or operational costs).
Just the cost to make the cell.
The major advancements came in around 2005 in technique but were not realize in cost of actual production until recently. You can figure out a better way to do something but it is a new thing to figure out how to mass produce it accurately and cost effectively.

But it's the cost of making the hydrogen and moreover the cost of distribution.
It's not like it has a liquid state that we can handle like LP or even Oxygen. It liquefies at -423F

It has to be handled like compressed natural gas.
A CNG station can compress their own at the station with a gas pipe supply, a non ferrous multi stage high pressure compressor and a storage tank. But could compress and fill at the same time but that takes much longer to fill.

It's the cars storage gets to be the same issue for both CNG & Hydrogen.
Those high pressure tanks for onboard storage cost about $1200 for a 3-4 gallon tank and are very heavy. Your not going very far on one tank. You need two for a medium range.
That is where many advancements has come about the last dozen years. New light weight high pressure tanks made of aluminum & carbon fiber composite materials. But have given some safety issues compared with large heavy steel cylinders. They have been experimenting with special carbon/graphite nanotubes inside of the tanks to arrange the methane molecules in the composite tanks better to actually get 20-35% more in them. Not sure if that can be done with Hydrogen but I personally doubt it since hydrogen is the most basic molecule/atom and isn't going to be rearranged.

Now think of the fueling station needs and how much compressed gas a truck might be able to carry to re-fill the station. A busy one would need a constant flow of trucks.
CNG is stored at either 3000psi or 3600psi. Not sure what they are using for Hydrogen but suspect it to be similar just because of the tanks limits. Nat Gas can be liquefied and is being liquefied for export. It's kinda pricey to do that but apparently profitable to export to certain areas who have little to no choice. Not sure how they will address this problem but they will.

We are close but we are just not there yet. The more progress we make in some areas puts pressure on other aspects of the whole equation.
It will be there in 10 years and we have and will continue to have more products, but it's just not cost effective 'yet'. I'm not giving up. I'm hopeful as I have been since the 90's.
But it is what it is.

Competition will ultimately bring the cost down as we find new/better methods of doing the same. That is unless merger and acquisition have their say.
Look how cheap it may seem if oil moves over $120 bl ! It will help keep that in 'check'.

But know this threatens the electric power industry and I'm sure they will throw something into this to monkey it up, just as they have with solar and the oil co's have over the years. So they have 2 industry's poised to make it fail.

So... that's what 'I Think', like it or not. I'm not a nay sayer, just a realist. I've been watch'n this for a long time. Even played with some small experimental fuel cells.

EDIT: I should add that once there are FCV on the road, anyone can produce hydrogen for sale.
That will bring the cost down. Gotta start with the need before we can produce the supply.

Is that what the original article I posted about GM's 2005 hydrogen Hummer was talking about when it spoke of a California "Hydrogen Highway"?

Not sure I read exactly what you are speaking to, but I believe the Cal Highway network was government involvement partnered with the industry to provide incentives to creating the infrastructure needed to having a regional viability. The industry provided the spec and the government moved to provide the incentive. Some with rule/regulation relaxing and some with tax breaks.
Meaning you can't have cars or people willing to make them and sell them if conditions can't be made favorable for folks to sell hydrogen in a variety of areas.
I don't know how it turned out or if the original is still in existence under the same names.
But I'm sure everyone at least learned something on how to proceed.

California has been trying many things to 'make it happen' for them and alt forms of energy.
Some fail and some are doing great. Their attitude changed in the 70's when all the smog was such a issue. Then came Enron to burn their ass. LOL
They have unique set of issues and some that are the same as everywhere else. Most new alt energy methods are tested there first, commercially anyway. There is a incentive to do so. They often pave the way for the rest of us anymore with most of the advancements.
Wish some other would do the same.

BTW... Arnold's Hummer was a HHO conversion using the regular engine. Not electric and fuel cell.
Perhaps you knew that but I said it so others did not get confused.

I was talking about this part of that article:

"October 29, 2004 General Motors has adapted a HUMMER H2 SUT to run on hydrogen, and will share it with the office of the Governor of California (aka Arnold Schwarzenegger). The HUMMER H2H will assist efforts to learn more about hydrogen storage and refueling infrastructure development. "The H2H is a bold experiment that along with the Hydrogen Highway Network will help California demonstrate the economic and technical viability of hydrogen," said California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. "Californians invent the future and the H2H shows that a vehicle of today can run on the fuel of tomorrow."

So I'm guessing the "Hydrogen Highway Network" was going to be fueling stations?

Fuel cell distribution centers.

The process of electrolysis requires energy. The trick is how much energy is required to make a tank of hydrogen for a car, what is the source of that energy, and what is its carbon footprint including production and delivery.

Personally I don't see Hydrogen being very popular but I could be wrong. If it becomes popular though, then fantastic! It will be yet another green alternative to oil and gas, and that's what's really important.

It was to create the infrastructure of them. A learning experience.
They had/wanted to figure out if they could really service locations and what issues they were up against.

But the H2 on hydrogen (H2H) is not a fuel cell vehicle and was never made for the public.
It was a conversion internal combustion engine. It had a compressor to increase the compression ratio (supercharger). That got you up to 180 HP on hydrogen.
$20,000 just for the conversion.
Not near it's natural over 300 HP on gasoline (it's a 6,000lb vehicle) and the fuel range was under 65 miles with the installed tanks. But that is all they needed for their experiment.

The experiment is distribution of fuel over a region that would be the same if they were fuel cell vehicles. Probably had some other testers that got no media using them.
Just because they successfully did it does not mean they could make it a profitable operation. It was a learning experiment. Those were not 'self service stations' and even Arnold, the governor could not 'fill' his own vehicle. But could be made safer self serve. May have been since then.

Somehow, it did not make much news but he also had a couple of diesel powered hummers. One ran on Veggy oil and one on bio diesel (not a lot of difference but different they are).
Those were much more cost effective in any way you measure it. More cost efficient to convert and run on a daily bases. More cost efficient to distribute the fuel for. And folks have been doing that all over the US without helpful intervention. Same with CNG.

In fact, take a look at the US DOE map of nationwide CNG stations. I have not looked at this in a few years and it continues to grow.
https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/natura...arest?fuel=CNG

Here is the same for hydrogen
https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/hydrog...earest?fuel=HY

BioDiesel
https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/hydrog...earest?fuel=BD

The cost of H in southern Cal is on average $14 per kilogram. About the equivalent of $5.50 a gal of gasoline. Not sure what it would be without tax incentives.
But know that without road tax and sales tax in Ca, gas would be about $1 gal cheaper.
And nobody is getting a tax break on profits from gasoline sales.

The average cost of CNG in gasoline equivalent is $2.05 per eq gal

Hydrogen 'can be' transported by cryogenic liquid tanker, getting it down to -423F.
I hope nobody thinks that does not take a bit of energy to do and costs a bit.
You can not store that very long at those temperatures unless you keep it refrigerated.

The answer to this for hydrogen is more localized producers. Preferably using solar and wind to generate the electric needed to separate the H from H2O.
Currently (I think it still holds true) that you 'can' make it cheaper than you can distribute it in that method.
There is a infrastructure for distribution that exists for industrial purposes.
I think they might be onboard if the infrastructure of stations were there.
In fact, after a new look... (last years news)
https://corporatenews.pressroom.toyo...california.htm

If we are not careful, we will be in one of those chicken and the egg quagmires. Toyota, Honda & BMW have invested in regional distribution here in the states. Even at least plans for NY.
But how long do you think they will sustain losses if it can't grow profitably on it's own. Tesla surprisingly did very well with their charging stations. I may open a station or two myself distributing all alt fuels. The timing seems right unless there is hanky panky in regulation created by those who would be foes of alt energy.

So yes, we need government incentive to help make it happen with tax incentives.
Perhaps even loan guarantees. I prefer this move on it's own merit cause when a 3rd party is involved in 'keeping it gong', the costs seem to go up as folks leach the system just like health care.
Doubt we will see help under the current admin. But we can hope. Hopefully he won't do anything to disrupt the progress made.

But if we were to get 15% converted to Hydrogen, 15% to Methane and 15% on biodiesel and perhaps 20% methanol in gas from sugar cane (not corn) we might be the largest net exporter of oil in the world.
Currently, we still import oil to fill our consumption needs. That has been shrinking since the fracking industry came to play. If you look at it the way they sell you, it is 'North America' that will be energy independent by 2021 (a play with words). That includes CAD and MX, major exporters to the US. We still import big time and will for the foreseeable future unless something is done on the demand side. All the above is the answer.

It's all about who you want to serve. To much power in any one spot is good for nobody.
Energy providers of the past have certainly shown that to us.
Do not allow big mergers !

When I last bought a array of solar panels, I bought the best at the time and paid what I thought was a bargain then of $7.50 per watt. Going rate then was over $9. Shortly after, BP bought the company out and quit making my panel.
Mine have survived 1.5-2.5 inch hailstones twice without indecent. But they are at he end of their 20 year design life, but still produce better than 95% of rated output.
Everyone asked me if I was saving anything and how much.
At the time, I did not care about the savings, just to have clean reliable power all the time was the issue. But I got a complete payback in 6 years for all the equipment.
How do you put a price on the value of having power when nobody else around does ?

Now... you can buy new panels, perhaps not made as well physically, at about $2 a watt.
The rest of the equipment is less than half the cost and much better and more versatile.
I have been looking at slightly used large array's at $1 a watt. And have the real estate to place them. I don't really need them but a novel project in perhaps making my own HHO, but will likely power a geothermal heating/cooling system and some other stuff.

Anyway, there is a lot to know about this stuff and you can't really understand it with just a few days of googles. I don't track it as close as I once did. A lot has change in just 2 years.

I don't think it will come down to being "another". I think only one will be the winner.

NYC had an entire FLEET of Electric Taxis in the 1800's:
"The first taxicab company in New York City was the Samuel's Electric Carriage and Wagon Company (E.C.W.C.), which began running 12 electric hansom cabs in July 1897"

Then Rockefellar paid scientists to find uses for the "waste" that they were dumping by the millions of gallons from production of kerosene...and one of those uses was the combustion engine and the "waste" was gasoline.

So this new cheap and powerful energy source became THE thing for cars.

Yes, right now we have some electric vehicles and plenty of gas vehicles being produced.

But in the end...it will come down to one of them being predominant.
Both industry's know that.
One will become the Sony Betamax. The other will be the VHS tape. (just an analogy)

I think the Hydrogen industry is trying to get in on this too before it gets set in stone.

So oil will be fighting off electric and hydrogen.

And in a decade or two...we will either have: Gas stations everywhere like we do now, Hydrogen Fuel Centers, or super fast charging stations.

And car manufacturers will take it down to producing ONE of these to cut costs and re-tooling.

That's the stakes. And they are very high. The winner will be THE industry.

I have still never seen a Tesla charging station with my own eyes.
I know that for the last few years the casinos here in Vegas all have certain parking spots where you can plug your car in.

But I haven't seen any stand alone charging stations yet.

I did see that we have a Tesla dealership here in Vegas now over on Sahara Ave. Pretty cool. But I just can't get into the "Sedan" styling. The car lot just looks like a bunch of generic cars.
Wish they'd bring back the Roadster style.

Hi Robbie,

It looks like there is 1 right near the McCaran Airport and one near henderson according to this map.

I'm surprised there are not more. There are 4 not far from me. You can also charge at Tesla dealerships.

Then again maybe they aren't necessary. The car charges to 80% in 20 minutes and you get something like 400 miles of range, so maybe they are spread out based on this fact. On the same map they are called "Destination Charging" but I'm not sure what the difference is.

Try one. They are cooler than they look.

m

I have to make a pitstop.... car needs a coal refuel.

https://i.imgur.com/OlkDgDY.jpg

it is quite hard to get a huge part of the energy back to use that you need to compress it.
but it makes sense to use free clean energy for that (like sun energy) that does not have really costs or emissions.

there is a way to get more out of it and I am thinking already 10 years on a theory that I could never approve yet because I am not a really tech-guy and handworker.

once I found one who can build my idea we will see if it will work.
but compressed air is in fact the cheapest thing to keep. it will not need any battery
with a limited lifetime and compression is still compression if you keep it for 50 years
somewhere. aluminium tanks have a near to unlimited lifetime.

unfortunately you have to deal with the chinese when it comes to that technology.

China's Hydrogen Tram - world's first hydrogen-powered tramcar

this is the big fact trump was overseeing when it comes to more jobs in NEW technologies.
but he is a climate change denier and this is something that effects the whole planet.
and this is exactly the reason why trump is not your private american issue.

from 2010 to 2017 the numbers of workers in renewable energies increased from 2,5 million to 10 miliion (+400% is only 7 years) til 2030 this number is expected to grow to
30 million people worldwide. and this is just the raw number based on the root industry.
this base industry in turn creates millions of jobs in the supply industry.

that's how economy works and that's how global trade works. and that's how the U.S. would be well equipped. that would be far more intelligent than waging nonsensical trade wars and believing that one country would benefit more than the others in this global economic cycle.

this thread here is the proof that even the most contradictory political camps (except for a few exceptions) recognize the necessity of rethinking.

Without letting this become a political discussion, we can already see here the contradiction in trump and the demands on the future.

it would be very nice if one could also conduct the pure political discussion on such a basis of facts. because here it is not about america but about the whole world of which america is only one part.

I might be with you on the roadster but I really have not liked the style of many of the cars the last 10 year and more. Perhaps it is a thing that comes with age. LOL

If you had a Tesla, you would know where the chargers are !

I remember when diesels were showing up in cars here in the US, folks were saying where would you get fuel when traveling. I said in a way they would understand after buying one, "same place the big trucks get it "! Now it is more common as it has been elsewhere in the world.

I think their onboard GPS will tell you where the closest ones are. Very practical when traveling but you can recharge for free at a company recharge station. There are private (pay) stations as well.

I probably said this before but I see the best near term fix being a mix of 'plug-in electric' with half of the batteries and a smaller fuel cell and smaller composite tank.
You get the range without the weight and improves the overall efficiency & cost.

Do not discount Methane Fuel Cells. They are still being advanced and make perfect sense right now. The oil & power industry fears this most as their biggest near threat.
https://www.machinedesign.com/materi...l-temperatures

The design of electrics has not yet met it's premium. Tesla was the first to just make use of the common sense we already knew but didn't do. He used Li-ion battery cells already in the industry, so he did not have to design and manufacture his own. Same cells used in laptops etc. But now is going to be making his own outside of Sparks NV.
You need to get rid of the traditional drive train and put smaller motors directly in all 4 wheel hubs. Less moving parts to boot.

As far as alt energy fuel stations (efuel stations), they will come along the interstate highways first for long range commutes. But Plug-in electrics have a disadvantage of time to charge. Not to bad if paired up with a restaurant/fast food etc. This is continuously being improved.
But this is why I say a mix of plug-in battery with a fuel cell is the best approach right now. But in the future ??? The fuel cell just needs to be big enough to power the car at speed limit on the flat. Battery capacity needs to be just enough for 75-100 miles on the flats. A average commute.

Together, it would be the same as any other gas powered vehicle. For short travels, you might only need the plug-in option which could be from any charging source like solar. With a Hydrogen or Methane fuel cell, you get the range you need without stopping to recharge. If I owned a Tesla or other all electric, I would be finding a place to stuff a small one in there...LOL

Personally, I want a 4kw fuel cell for standby power at home. Little to pricey yet.

Before de-regulation, my electric rate was 8.65 cents a KWH, now it is almost 17 cents.
(delivered costs for both). And they are still crying they can't make money and want more...LOL Need something to keep this in check. I don't pay delivery on what I'm not buying. Solar worked for me. Even at that old high price I paid for it 20 years ago.

That is right. Displays in Tesla tell you where the chargers are, how many are available, etc. And if you plan a long trip, it will show you the route while telling you where you have to charge in order to make it to your destination, and provide alternatives at the same time. You can drive cross-country in a Tesla with charging stops no longer than 20 minutes.


My Chevy Volt is like that. Most of my driving is pure electric but a gas engine kicks in to turn a generator to charge the batteries to drive the wheels when the battery. (The gas engine never turns the wheels directly).

Correct. Back to the Chevy Volt again, the new 2019 model charges to full capacity in just over 2 hours with a standard level 2 charger. And there are new battery technologies just coming out that charge even faster.

Already been in one. And yes they are very cool. But I like a much more aggressive style for the exterior.
I mean...my old Chevy Astro mini-van was so comfortable and luxurious inside it was like riding around in a Penthouse apt.
But it didn't look very cool from the outside! lol

I'll probably wait a few years to see how things shake out and if/when they come up with another cool sportscar styled vehicle.

In the meantime...I'm chomping at the bit for the new Shelby Mustang GT500 to finally be unleashed. :)

I have the perfect car for you. An electric AWD Mustang:


(It sure makes me jizz!)

https://www.autoblog.com/2018/11/15/...awd-uk-charge/

EDIT Actually fuck that. it's the perfect car for me! You can have my Volt, I'm buying an electric classic mustang. Fuck me that car sexy.

Way Cool !

and that idiot Trump´s killing the planet with the coal industry :disgust


there´s wind, water & natural heat supplies like solar & source heating to generate electric...


:2 cents:

this :thumbsup

this has to be incorrect...

portugal is now 100% solar & natural fuels :2 cents:

That chart is also almost 2 years old.

Most (earth based) natural resources are eventually going to run out. Best bet is to switch to something that can last as long as humans are alive.

-inebriated post-

So,... when you look at that chart... you see Portugal somewhere on it, .. and that's how you've deduced that the data must be faulty?

Congrats to the EU for going backwards though.

Jesus.

Damn it, that Mustang sells for $225,000 :(

I always hate charts like this as they mislead many.
I always look for the correct perspective when shown them and disregard them as skewed data if I can't get it.
If you look at it close, and double read the text,
It says Changes in Carbon emissions.
Meaning you made more or less compared to some other reference in time (not clear when), and how much difference more or less.
Your not getting the baseline information.
And your not getting what qualifies as a carbon emission or how big the sample data is.

I'm not saying the data is wrong, just that it looks nothing like a authoritative chart I would make decisions from. (they have made no trustable impression on me)

If I were to believe that chart, I would ask what was the big change decreasing those emissions in the US. 'cause I don't see it.
While we are not burning 'as much' coal, we made up for that in Nat Gas and you generate about as much Carbon doing so, just not a lot of the other crap they have to deal with like sulfur dioxide, arsenic and mercury let alone those tiny particles (under 5 microns) they have yet to figure out how to deal with.

Any economy that is growing is naturally is going to be making more of it faster than we can deal with it.

But...
I 'never' bought the CO2 argument to begin with. But that is not saying that man has not done a lot of damage in creating a warming planet faster than it was occurring naturally. Just not from CO2. My opinion anyway.

That's actually not too bad...

In Montreal there's a place that sells only classic cars. I was always a Firebird fan and when I heard they had some I went to check them out, but they were all selling for over $100,000. Firebirds! $100k! They had some 60's Mustangs too at over $160k but I don't know them well and couldn't tell you what they were exactly.

Anyway If I saw 2 Mustangs like the electric one above, 1 electric and 1 not, I would be all over the electric one. Sure the ICE one would have a killer rumble, but I would still be itching to take the EV home and give it some Marky-love.