So much for Fossil fuel and electric cars.
http://www.advanceaustralia.org.au/un_climate_conference_buys_oil_generators_to_power_their_electric_cars?fbclid=IwAR35uv4BTCQf3UPDpnYFsy9w55_0SkYcl_-0N0d9R_eK6jam1QPqAuXRKaQ

Josephus,

A good link, which we both know will be ignored.

At least the coal etc., will still be there for future generations.

Hasbeen

Have a look at thedriven-io.cdn.ampproject.org.

You can get your TR7 converted to electric.

In the meantime, the same rag (SMH) that vowed that it would take up to 16 years to crack even on an EV, has now produced a woman who says she did it with her Leaf in 12 months.

There is no doubt that climate/renewables propaganda is meant to bamboozle us.

ttbn I would drive the TR7 & the TR8 off a cliff before I would let them be converted to battery electric propulsion.

There has been a lot of talk on the hydrogen energy system.
I have had negative feelings it about because I have memories of
reading articles about the conversion losses.
From memory there is basic loss in converting energy from one form to
another, eg electricity to hydrogen and oxygen.
I did a search for an explanation but could not find a simple example.
I had an idea the loss is greater than 50%, ie the energy in
the hydrogen is less than 50% of the input to the electrolyser.
My understanding is that when losses in the fuel cell are added in
it means that hydrogen is a dud for electrical generation and that
batteries are a better solution.
For vehicles the grid is a more efficient source and batteries the
the better storage device.

So have I got it right ? Hydrogen starts with a major loss in
efficiency that can never be overcome because of fundamental physics.

I see trains in the future going to magnetic tube to reach high speed but cars will be slowed down because of the energy to drive an electric motor. Heavy machinery will go to hydrogen, but it will be expensive and prone to explosion.