Why Hydrogen and Synthetic Fuels don't make sense for mainstream cars
But still have an important role in other areas and enthusiasts cars
Summary
Synthetic fuel could be a great way of keeping car enthusiasts' ICE on the road - long live the V8! and for motor racing to keep using the ICE. Indeed F1 have announced they plan exactly that.
Synthetic fuel and hydrogen do have an important role to play in reducing and eventually eliminating CO2 from things like steel manufacturing and types of transport where direct electrification doesn't work - such as long-distance aviation and shipping. Maybe long-distance HGV trucks and other specialist vehicles, such as diggers, although that isn't yet clear.
However for mainstream cars efficiency is the killer - they require 2-5 times more electricity to create hydrogen or synthetic fuel vs using electricity directly in a battery EV (BEV), which makes them more expensive and much less effective at reducing CO2. Therefore they don't make sense for the majority of mainstream cars - by mainstream I mean the majority of cars most people buy - four-cylinder petrol or diesel family cars.
For hydrogen the key reasons it's very unlikely to take off for mainstream cars include; hardly any cars (two), which are expensive and virtually no commitment by any other manufacturers to create production hydrogen cars vs $Bs going into BEVs, little infrastructure to create or deliver - for example in the UK there are ~10 stations vs 16,000 EV charging locations and they cost $1-2M each, running costs are much higher than BEVs because hydrogen is expensive to produce due to its inefficiency - it simply needs a lot more electricity.
For synthetic fuels, the key issues include; many governments are banning any form of ICE from between 2025 and 2035 including EU, UK, Canada and an increasing number of US states, many car manufacturers have announced they will stop producing ICE models by ~2035, including VW Group, Jaguar Landrover, Mercedes and Volvo. While there is the existing infrastructure to deliver, there is almost no infrastructure to create synthetic fuels - in the US alone ~140 billion gallons of gasoline are consumed each year, it consumes 4-5 times more electricity to create synthetic fuel vs using electricity directly in a BEV, which makes it much more expensive to run and makes its CO2 footprint much bigger for many years until the vast amount of additional renewable electricity generation it requires is built.
These figures from Transport and Environment show much much more expensive and CO2 emitting synthetic fuel is compared to BEV. The TCO was projecting out to 2030 when synthetic fuel should be cheaper (as well EVs):
Source: Transport and Environment
These figures show how the CO2 footprint of hydrogen is higher than BEV and the TCO is higher too.
CO2 footprint for a car purchased in 2030. Source: Transport and Environment
TCO. Source: The European Consumer Organisation
The rest of this article goes into the details of how hydrogen and synthetic fuels are created, delivered and used in a car, examining the efficiencies and their implications on cost, CO2 reduction and therefore adoption.
CO2 Reduction Goals
Climate change is already having a major effect, warming our world and causing increasing extreme weather, fires, flooding, droughts, and rises in sea level. It continues to get worse and in order to limit these most countries have made commitments to reach net-zero CO2 by 2050 (China 2060) and they have committed major reduction goals over the next few years, for example, the EU "Fit for 55" commits to reduce CO2 by 55%, compared to 1990 levels, by 2030. Likely more commitments will be made at the UK climate conference, COP26.
This means action across almost all areas of life and business. The two relevant areas for this discussion is of course transport and electricity generation. This is the reason governments are driving rapid change in transport, including many planning to ban the sale of new Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) cars. This also means that when assessing hydrogen vs synthetic fuels vs BEV it's not simply the if they can get to net-zero by 2050, but also how much can they reduce CO2 in the shorter term and what impact do they have on CO2 reduction of electricity generation and other sectors.
Uses
There are many competing uses for green hydrogen and green synthetic fuels. There are two areas of transport where there are no other viable options - long-distance aviation and shipping, where battery energy density is simply not practical. Aviation consumers almost 100 billion gallons of fuel a year. In addition, green hydrogen is a critical part of decarbonising farming with fertiliser production and decarbonising steel production.
Given that neither green hydrogen nor green synthetic fuels are produced in any volume currently, there is a huge amount of production capacity to be built, which will take many years. Therefore overall CO2 reduction will be greater if the limited quantities of green hydrogen and green synthetic fuels are directed to where only they can help, and leave other areas, such as cars, to BEVs.
Production
Green hydrogen, green synthetic fuel and BEVs all get their energy from electricity. This means they are intrinsically linked to the carbon intensity and de-carbonising of electricity generation. This varies a lot by country, for example, US ~40%, EU ~60% and China ~70% zero CO2 (renewables + nuclear). While all are heading to net-zero electricity this will take many years.
This means for many years the more electricity used by all three options has a significant CO2 footprint. This is the core of the CO2 issue with synthetic fuels and hydrogen - due to their inefficiency they use a lot more electricity and therefore cause a lot more CO2. There is also has a knock-on effect - if we have to build even more renewable electricity generation to cope with the extra demands of hydrogen and synthetic fuel for cars then it will slow down the overall decarbonisation of electricity generation, causing everything else that uses electricity to emit more CO2 for longer.
Product Efficiency. Source: Transport and Environment
BEV production efficiency is ~94% - there are only small losses from the distribution of electricity over the power grid.
Hydrogen Production
Hydrogen production efficiency is significantly less, at ~68%. This is because there are significant losses from a combination of matter transformation and compression and as the yellow figures above show this is only expected to improve modestly by 2050. Hydrogen is produced by passing an electric current through water (electrolysis), the energy causes the H2O to break into Hydrogen and oxygen. The hydrogen is captured and has to be massively compressed, to around 700 bar (~690 x atmospheric pressure), since hydrogen is a very light gas with a tiny energy density unless compressed down to a liquid. Compression is the other cause of efficiency loss.
Hydrogen Production. Source: Hydro Tasmania
Synthetic Fuel Production
Synthetic fuel production efficiency is the lowest at ~55% (which is consistent with the theoretical efficiency quoted by Prometheus Fuels, at 50-60%). This is because of the two different matter transitions required - firstly hydrogen has to be created from water, using hydrolysis (it also requires energy for desalination if taken from seawater), and then combined with CO2 to create hydrocarbon synthetic fuel. No hydrogen compression is required. However, in order to be CO2 neutral, the CO2 required must be extracted from the air using CO2 from air capture, which also requires electricity.
Synthetic Fuel Production. Source: eFuels Alliance
Synthetic fuel produced using electricity is commonly called eFuel. Synthetic fuel itself is an old process, the German's used it in World War II as they had limited access to oil.
The US alone consumers ~140 billion gallons of gasoline per year. Porsche and Siemens are opening the first synthetic fuel production in Chile in 2022 and expect to be producing 550 million litres / 145 million US gallons per year by 2026. Enough for 300-400K cars. Clearly, it would take many years and a monumental investment in synthetic fuel production and sustainable energy generation to reach a viable scale. Indeed some synthetic fuel proponents, such as the e-fuel alliance have suggested a similar approach as we use now with bio-fuel - mixing synthetic fuel with traditional fossil fuel at increasing percentages over the next few decades. They also recognise the difficulty of building such a huge amount of sustainable electricity generation, and suggest locating most of the production in locations with a lot of wind and/or solar, such as Chile and the Middle East, Africa, etc. It's clear that synthetic fuels are many years away from significant volume, while BEVs are here now and selling in increasing volumes and require much less electricity, generate less CO2 and cost less to run.
Driving
Driving efficiency is how much of the energy delivered to the car is actually used to drive it.
BEVs are the most efficient with ~95% efficiency at each step (charging the battery and discharging it into the electric motors), with small increases expected over the coming years.
Hydrogen Fuel Cell Electric (FCEV) is the next most efficient. While driving the electric motors is equally efficient compared to BEV they are only ~54% efficient converting hydrogen into electricity.
In theory, hydrogen could be used in an adapted or purpose-built hydrogen ICE. However, there are no current or proposed production hydrogen ICE cars, likely because this would be as inefficient as a petrol or diesel ICE. There may be some specialist uses for hydrogen ICE, for example, JCB is working on some.
Synthetic fuel is the least efficient way of driving a car, at between ~30-36%. The same as it is today for petrol or diesel. Largely because so much of the energy of the fuel is lost as heat. While ICE efficiency continues to increase it's been optimised for years and as shown in the yellow below the level of future improvement is expected to be small.
Driving Efficiency. Source: Transport and Environment
Overall Efficiency
Combining the production and driving efficiency we can see that BEV is by far the most efficient at ~77%. In comparison, hydrogen is 2.3x less efficient and synthetic fuel 3.8 to 4.9x less efficient. By 2050 the gap will have closed, but will still be 1.9x and 3.7 to 4.5 less efficient respectively.
Efficiency. Source: Transport and Environment
Cost
We've already discussed how the inefficiency of hydrogen and synthetic fuel means it uses more electricity and therefore creates more CO2, until all electricity is created from renewables. The other major implication is with electricity as the source for all three the much greater use of electricity also directly translates into a much higher cost.
The average US ICE consumption is 25 miles per gallon and the cost is ~$3.00 = $0.12 per mile. Figures vary around the world, generally fuel economy is better but the cost per gallon is higher, due to higher tax.
The average cost of electricity in the US is ~$0.10 per KWh and the average EV consumption ~0.3 KWh per mile. Therefore the average cost per mile is ~$0.03. About 4x less than an ICE.
Hydrogen currently sells in the US filling stations for ~$13 per KG (it's sold by weight, not volume) and can cover ~70 miles per KG = $0.19 per mile. Meaning hydrogen is >50% more expensive than ICE and 6x more than a BEV. This is based on grey hydrogen - green hydrogen is much more expensive and not expected to reach price parity with grey until at least 2030. Hydrogen prices are expected to drop in the long term, but much of this drop is going to be due to the rapidly reducing price of renewably generated electricity - which will also reduce the running costs of BEV
According to Porsche synthetic fuel from the plant in Chile will initially cost ~$37 per gallon and they hope to get it down to around $7.50 per 2027. Bosch has the most aggressive price decrease claim, saying they believe it could get down to ~$5.30 per gallon by 2030 and as low as ~$4.40 "long term", although there is significant disagreement with the realism of this figure, plus a lot of it assumes a big drop in renewable electricity generation, which would also drive down BEV costs. Even taking Bosch's very optimistic long term view synthetic fuel is ~50% more than current gas and 5.8x higher than BEV (assuming electric costs don't drop for BEV).
This demonstrates why Porsche and F1 are interested in synthetic fuels - great for their expensive cars, where owners aren't going to be bothered by such a large premium. But for most people such a large increase from now, let alone such a big premium compared to BEV isn't going to be very appealing.
But the picture gets worse for synthetic fuel. Already BEVs have lower running costs for maintenance and the cost of buying a BEV keeps getting lower, largely due to a combination of battery technology improvements and manufacturing efficiencies. BloombergNEF is projecting BEVs will hit price parity with ICE between 2025-7 depending on car size, and then drop below new ICE car prices:
This ties in nicely with our previous look at TCO, at the start of the article.
Production CO2
Battery mining, processing and manufacturing is energy-intensive and hence causes significant CO2 emissions, unless only renewable energy is used. However, BEVs still save a lot of CO2 compared to ICE over their lifetime and depending on the model can reduce CO2 within a few thousand miles / 1-2 years:
Source: Carbon Brief
The CO2 footprint depends on many factors including where the battery is made, what source of electricity is used, for example, VW only use renewable power for ID production, and the size of the battery. The CO2 footprint keeps going down due to a combination of greater renewable electricity. use and improvements in battery and manufacturing technology - the same reasons prices are coming down.
As we saw from the figures at the start of the article the CO2 footprint of a BEV is also superior to a synthetic fuel ICE and hydrogen car.
Recently Formula 1 published an article that seemed to claim synthetic fuel ICE could be lower CO2 than BEV by 2030.
This was based on a study by the Institute of Mechanical Engineers:
However, the figures in this study have a gaping hole, can you spot it from their diagram?
Source: Institute of Mechanical Engineers
It's the red bar with the *Carbon footprint for production will also be reduced.
They correctly show that currently, BEVs have the lowest CO2. But for their 2030 projection, they assume 100% renewable for the electricity to run the BEV or create the synthetic fuel (which is very optimistic). BUT they assume NO improvements in the electricity used to produce the car, although they state it will go down. For a realistic comparison, they should have projected CO2 using all renewable electricity to produce the car. Or more accurate still would be to project the expected grid mix for 2030 and beyond. This is what Transport and Environment did and it shows a very different and more realistic picture:
Source: Transport and Environment
Summary
I believe it's very clear why governments and car manufacturers are focussing $Bs of investment in BEVs and very little on synthetic fuels and hydrogen for cars, and why that is better for both CO2 reduction and decreasing, not increasing, costs for the consumer.
Synthetic fuel and hydrogen have a really important role to play in CO2 reduction, but it's best to focus on where it's the only viable choice, like aviation, shipping, and steel production.
Synthetic fuel could also be the saviour of the enthusiast's ICE. This is probably why Porsche is investing. At the least, it will allow performance ICE to stay on the road indefinitely. Potentially governments may allow some low volume synthetic fuel ICE exceptions to the 2025-35 new ICE bans that are coming.
Additional Information
Well, that's it for the main article. If you want further information below is a variety of information I gathered in writing this article
Ways to adopt Synthetic Fuel
There are three main ways synthetic fuel could be made available at existing fuel stations.
1) Replace premium octane fuel with synthetic fuel of the same octane. This would fit my proposed focus on performance cars, which are the ones already using and paying a premium for high octane fuel, such as "Super Unleaded" in the UK or "Premium Unleaded" in the US. While it would be a lot more expensive for many years the buyers of this fuel are less likely to have an issue with this and there is nothing to stop different gas/fuel stations from stocking either fossil premium or synthetic premium, giving consumers the choice at the start when the premium is particularly high. This would also handle the scaling issue as it could start at only a few stations and roll out over time. In the US premium unleaded account for ~10%, which is around 14 billion gallons a year. This could also give a pathway for governments to allow low volume exemptions from new ICE car bans - manufacturers could offer a small volume of performance ICE that could only use synthetic fuel, at a scale that could match production ramp-up.
2) Blend synthetic fuel with fossil fuels. Much as we do today with E10 fuel - which is 10% biofuel. This would gradually decrease the CO2 of fuel and scales with synthetic fuel production. But it would take decades to reach 100% and doesn't help performance ICE avoid being banned.
3) Replace standard octane fuel with synthetic fuel. However, this isn't practical as it will take decades to scale production to meet demand and it would be decades if ever, before the price is at parity with fossil fuels - you can imaging the outcry if people with existing ICE are forced to pay a lot more for their fuel.
Synthetic Fuel and Hydrogen - a Big Oil and Gas Play?
The cynic in me makes me wonder if synthetic fuel and hydrogen are being pushed by Big Oil and Gas to keep them in the game. Fair enough at one level, but open to abuse.
Both require massive production and distribution of liquid fuels which nicely fit Big Oil and Gas. They are absolutely required for areas that can't be directly electrified, like aviation, shipping and steel production. But if they are pushed too much in road transport (or other areas like heating) they are open to abuse:
Green Hydrogen is expensive to produce and has little production infrastructure. Big Gas could easily "step in to save the shortage" by selling dirty grey and blue hydrogen created from natural gas. My cynical self wonders if they know it's not practical to scale as quickly as they are saying, and their real game plan is to sell lots of dirty grey/blue hydrogen from their natural gas assets.
Synthetic fuel has even bigger scale and cost issues. Again my cynical self wonders if Big Oil is just trying to keep us hooked on oil with the promise of clean synthetic fuels. Then when we discover their falsely optimistic scale and cost reduction plans don't play out we have to keep buying their oil.
Types of Hydrogen Production
Although it's the most plentiful element in the universe it's highly reactive and therefore can't be found in nature directly. Rather it has to be created in one of a number of ways, which are given colours for convenience - all hydrogen is really colourless!
No matter how it is produced, in its native form, it's a very diffuse gas with an energy density so low as to be useless. Therefore hydrogen has to be massively compressed or cooled to turn it into a liquid with a reasonable energy density, although still less than petrol/gas. This consumes a lot of energy, another reason for its inefficiency, and expensive special-purpose tanks and pumps to store and deliver it.
Hydrogen Colours. Source: Global Energy Infrastructure
The vast majority of hydrogen used in the world today is "grey". Its made by steam reforming of natural gas. Essentially turning methane in hydrogen, with a nasty side product of a lot of CO2. This is a bit pointless as it does little to reduce CO2. It is the cheapest form of hydrogen today.
Blue hydrogen is being pushed by Big Oil and Gas, since it keeps them selling natural gas. Its often called "low carbon hydrogen" since the intention is to capture most of the CO2 it releases. However, this is rather questionable. Partly because carbon capture has a bad history of not living up to its promised levels of capture and partly because some methane escapes as the gas is extracted from the ground and transported to the steam reforming plants and is around 100x worse than CO2 at causing climate change. Indeed a recent study by Cornell and Stanford universities found that blue hydrogen could actually be worse than gas or coal:
The other issue with blue hydrogen is it's more expensive than grey as it has the extra cost of carbon capture.
Green hydrogen is the holy grail - zero CO2 because it's all created by renewable energy - basically, you pass an electric current through water (H2O) and it breaks apart into Hydrogen and Oxygen, with a byproduct of heat. The trouble is this process, electrolysis, is expensive as it requires a lot more electricity compared to simply putting electricity into a BEV and virtually nowhere in the world has 100% sustainable electricity yet.
So in reality for many years hydrogen created using hydrolysis is actually "yellow" - it still has a significant CO2 footprint from the electricity it uses. "Hang on" I hear you say, "isn't that the same problem as BEVs?". Yes, it is, but remember the efficiency point - if we need 2x more electricity to create hydrogen to drive a Hydrogen Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle (FCEV) then that FCEV has a much higher CO2 footprint than a BEV run on the same electricity. The other issue it causes is it slows down transitioning electricity generation to zero CO2 - since we have to build far more capacity, which takes longer.
Hydrogen Refueling
This is another key weakness. The headline figure for refuelling time is fast, similar to gas/petrol. The trouble is there are very few places to refuel, for example in the UK they are around 10 stations. The costs of building are $1-$2M per station, meaning someone would need to invest $Bs to build out national hydrogen fueling stations. It's not a drop into existing petrol/gas stations since it needs entirely new high pressure, above ground, storage tanks and pumps and a new fleet of hydrogen tankers to transport it.
In comparison, the UK has over 40,000 EV charging points at over 16,000 locations and is adding 500-700 more every month with $Bs of investment. Many other countries also have large and rapidly expanding and well funded charging infrastructure plans, including the EU, US, and China.
Hydrogen Fuel Cell Cars
Hydrogen is pumped at extreme pressure into specially reinforced tanks in the car and when driven the hydrogen is fed into a Hydrogen Fuel Cell where it reacts with Oxigen in the air to create electricity and water and waste heat. The electricity both powers the car's electric motors and chargers a small battery that is used to provide instantaneous power - the fuel cell operation has a bit of lag. It's also not a particularly efficient process, so a fair bit more energy is lost converting the hydrogen into electricity.
Source: VW
There are only two hydrogen production cars by Toyota and Hyundai. Honda has stopped production of their hydrogen car. Hyperion is promising a hydrogen supercar in ~2022. While a few other manufacturers are doing some prototype work to keep their foot in the hydrogen door no other manufacturers have any firm plans for production hydrogen cars. Indeed VAG has spelt out why it's investing in BEV and not Hydrogen for the group:
Source: VW
Contrast this to the $Bs being poured into BEV cars and the very long and rapidly growing list of BEVs on the market.
Hydrogen Internal Combustion Engine (H-ICE)
An alternative way to use hydrogen is burning it in an engine, similar to petrol. It's not possible to simply put hydrogen into an existing ICE. It either needs an expensive conversion or an engine built to use hydrogen from the outset. The other issue is that burning hydrogen also created NOx emissions - the same emissions that were at the heart of the VW emissions scandal. So the car still needs expensive emission management measures.
The energy density of hydrogen is much less than petrol, so you need more of it.
It's also much less efficient than a FCEV, so it costs more to run and emits more CO2. Its efficiency is similar to that of synthetic fuel.
For cars, a hydrogen ICE makes no sense. There may be some niche applications, for example, JCB seems keen on pushing the idea for some of its large diggers.
Biofuels
I've not covered biofuels as it's a bit outside the scope of the article. Here is a quick summary of biofuels and why they are not suited as an alternative.
Biofuels have been around for years, it's what makes the "E" in E10 fuel - where 10% biofuel is mixed with traditional petrol to (hopefully) reduce CO2. In theory, this mix could go up to 100%. Biofuels are either created from plants or waste.
However, there are lots of issues with biofuels as many because at scale they need vast amounts of land to grow (there are some water-based variants), which can cause deforestation, damage the environment and cause CO2 emissions. For more details on the issue see this article:
Range and Charging
With cost and CO2 reduction both disadvantages of hydrogen and synthetic fuel vs BEV, the key issues they potentially better address are range and charging/refuelling. While these are certainly better than BEVs that gap is closing and ceases to be a show stopper for most uses cases.
My experience owning an EV is I start every day fully charged - I plug in at home. Most governments are putting a lot of funding into street and community charging for those without off-street parking, so they can do the same. This is far from perfect now, but its well understood and that a lot of funding has to go into this in preparation for new ICE bans and to drive adoption of EVs generally.
This means I only need to charge on longer journeys and the pattern is fairly simple - drive for 2-3 hours, stop for a coffee/toilet break/charge for ~20 mins, rinse and repeat. Newer EVs tend to have better range and faster-charging speeds. Not quite as simple as ICE, but really not much of a bother in my experience.
This does highlight the importance of funding/driving the widespread deployment of ultra-rapid chargers. I own a Tesla and it's never a problem finding a Super Charger on a long journey and it's extremely rare to queue or find them broken. It's certainly important to ensure the public charging network is up to similar standards. Here in the UK >£1B is being spent on charging infrastructure with lots of charging hubs going in. In the EU the new "Fit for 55" regulation will require European countries to have 1KW of charging capacity per EV and rapid charging hubs along all major routes and urban areas. The US is in the midst of passing similar funding approaches to chargers.
Battery technology developments are improving both range and charging speeds. For example, my Tesla is around 4.5 years old, the new version of my car has almost twice the range and twice the charging speed.
In the near-term Tesla's new 4680 battery, coming 2022, will significantly improve range, energy density and cost:
Source: Tesla
In the medium term, in the second half of this decade, the next big step will be the solid-state battery. Toyota has said they are focussing on this and VW Group made a major investment partnership announcement with QuantumScape. The figures below from QuantumScape look very promising, with 70-80% improvements in energy density, range, and charging times.
Source: QuantumScape
Join In
Comments (29)
Finally, someone who is actually talking some sense! I fully support E Fuels in large scale applications (ie shipping and aviation) and for an enthusiast market but they are too inefficient to be viable in the mainstream for the automotive sector. That said, I'm quite agnostic as a whole on what should power mainstream cars.
yes they are inefficient at the moment but technically much cleaner than an ev and much more energy denser than electric.......so its 2 pros vs 1 con ........
Yes, but it turns out that con is massively important, as they are so inefficient it is literally impossible to source enough electricity to create enough for them to be used in the mainstream.
and perhaps you missed the biggest talking point of synthetic fuels.........no need of changing the existing infrastructure of petrol pumps.....no need of ev conversions.....................synthetic fuels......sadly....render evs somewhat more of middle england solution and more of a politician profit movement....
I agree there is a place for all three. But in pure form synthetic fuel fits performance cars, not mainstream.
I do like the e-fuels alliance concept of mixing synthetic and fossil fuels, as we do today with E10. In a few years when they have...
Read moreWell done Mike. I've kept banging on to those who have faith but no theoretical grasp to the physics, why pure electric vehicles are the direction to follow. Here you've given the data as well. What's the betting we'll get nay-sayers with 'alternative facts'? The Orange Gangster Trump has a lot to answer for!
no tesla fanboy
What’s more, a full life cycle analysis conducted by the Institute of Mechanical Engineers last year showed that a BEV powered by renewable energy would emit 58g/km across its whole lifespan (including mining raw materials for the...
Read moreeven legendary formula one designer gordan murray thinks evs arent everything
youtu.be/gvFusDf30ds?t=3695
you simply seem to forget that the main goal of synthetic fuels are first to be used in general public cars and the price of it is going to come down by 2030 comes out...........and as per f1 only 8 percent or less will be full ev on the road .......so there needs to be a better solution to get to climate neutrality and that is to focus on existing fleet and the general public cars are the best for that .............www.motorauthority.com/news/1133866_prodrive-already-ready-to-race-with-synthetic-fuel
i think there will be everything as an option.........hydrogen/ev/synthetic fuels....and speaking of the bans even chris harris said that its anyway just subjected to change
www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gTZ9QRTtfQ
moreover the cost of evs will not come down unless and untill ssd batteries arrive and the price of evs hasnt improved a single bit since 2010 along with their massive inflation rate of 100 percent.............as said by ceo of stellantis and jcb
youtu.be/19Q7nAYjAJY