Volkswagen develops hydrogen car that can travel 2k kilometers on one tank | Hacker News Reader

Volkswagen develops hydrogen car that can travel 2k kilometers on one tank

ruetir.com

107 pointsDocFeind120 comments

A thinly veiled advertisement for Kraftwerk Tubes, whose founder Sascha Kühn has at least once before completely failed to deliver.

https://www.businessinsider.de/gruenderszene/allgemein/kraft...

Google Translate link: https://www-businessinsider-de.translate.goog/gruenderszene/...

>It turns out that they have even quietly filed a patent for a hydrogen car that can drive 2,000 kilometers on a single tank.

It does not appear that this is an empirical demonstration, just a claim, so I'd say that your concerns are pretty reasonable.

Probably not anywhere near the same scale of "failing to deliver" but thought it might be a good place to recommend WSJ's Bad Bets podcast; Its current season tells the story of how whistleblowers and short sellers took down Nikola's founder, Trevor Milton: https://www.wsj.com/podcasts/bad-bets/the-unraveling-of-trev...

> A thinly veiled advertisement for Kraftwerk Tubes

Did they test it on the Autobahn?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-G28iyPtz0

Some time ago I saw a presentation from the chaos computer club where an expert on the matter explained there is a lot of misunderstandings about hydrogen technology as an energy source and how is gonna useful for society and why it is necessary.

In a nutshell some industries that currently rely on natural gas cannot switch effectively to electricity, hydrogen seems to be the only solution at the moment.

Regarding transportation, it seems to be widely accepted that hydrogen is not an efficient solution for small vehicles. There may be some cases where it makes sense (heavy trucks, train locomotives), but overall it doesn't seem like anybody expects hydrogen cars to be mass produced.

What is there problem with small vehicles?

EV's are about 3X as efficient turning electricity into motion as hydrogen cars are. Here's a good graphic from Volkswagen laying it out very clearly.

https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1127660_battery-electri...

What about using hydrogen as a generator for an EV like in the Hyundai 74 concept? I’m far from an expert but something like that, at least intuitively, feels like a nice compromise with having portability of fuel, but still allowing for alternative power sources via electricity (like if grid power was sourced via solar, hydro, wind, etc).

Looks like the worst of both worlds at the first glance. However depends by the costs of batteries. In a world with an abundance/excess of green energy but expensive batteries to store it hydrogen makes sense. The conversion of electricity->hydrogen->electricity is quite inneficient so batteries better be cheap enough otherwise we will go the hydrogen way for cars as well.

I think you’re under the impression that it requires the hydrogen generator? You can use the hydrogen tank if you are without somewhere to charge the vehicle, but you can also just use it as a traditional EV and charge as you normally would.

Both hydrogen and batteries are energy storage technologies. My point is that it doesn't make sense to use one technology if the other is cheaper.

If batteries are too expensive then you would have an electricity -> hydrogen conversion at the power plat/wind farm.

Why not add a gas engine too, for places where you only have gas and not electricity or hydrogen? Because it's unnecessary weight to carry around. Toyota and Japan pushed hydrogen for a long time because their industrial base is so focused on gas/diesel drive trains. Their vast investments and expertise will be worthless as we leave it behind. They've also never made any progress getting away from hydrogen coming from fossil fuels. h is not a great fuel source because it's so much less dense than carbon fuels, you can't get far on one tank. It has two benefits, easy to refuel, and burning it doesn't produce pollution, but the negative of coming from fossil fuels kills it.

Fuel cells in the vehicle would be much more efficient. Combustion generators in the car have storage issues and efficiency issues. liquid hydrogen needs cryogenic storage, compressed hydrogen isn't space efficient relative to the output. Combustion generators at home would suffer from the same storage problems as in cars.

https://youtu.be/vJjKwSF9gT8

I don't understand what problems the Hyundai 74 is trying to solve. It has roughly the same stats as a long range model 3 for acceleration and range, but has to carry around both a fuel cell and a 60+ kwh battery (nearly as large as the model 3's). Hydrogen mpge is already terrible (all hydrogen mirai has 75 compared to long range model 3 at 130), and an extra step here is only going to make it worse.

Is there something I'm misunderstanding about the vehicle's platform?

refill vs recharge

Hydrogen makes no sense for passenger vehicles. It requires building out a massive infrastructure that doesn't exist and is just far less efficient than storing the elecricity in a battery.

Check out this video for more on where Hydrogen does and does not make sense: https://youtu.be/JlOCS95Jvjc

Now what happens as soon as there _is indeed_ sufficient H2 refuelling infrastructure for trucks? (Assuming that it will happen for long haul trucks because BEV trucks will not replace diesel powered ones in the long term)

Doesn't that make FCEV cars look a lot more convenient than BEV cars?

Science writer David Roberts had a long conversation with Rebecca Dell from ClimateWorks about decarbonizing heavy industry back in February. Lots more detail here if that’s of interest to you: https://www.volts.wtf/p/volts-podcast-rebecca-dell-on-decarb...

The best balanced overview of hydrogen's future I've seen has been the Hydrogen Science Coalition: https://h2sciencecoalition.com/principles/

Green hydrogen is desperately required to produce fertilizer cleanly, so it is a problem that must be solved. It also looks very promising in a couple of other industrial processes, like the production of steel.

And that's about all we can say with any degree of certainty.

Why do fertilizer and steel require hydrogen in particular rather than just green-electricity-powered induction heating? Is the hydrogen meant to be a chemical component in the manufacture of fertilizer and steel rather than merely a heat fuel?

Correct. It’s not purely for heating.

Fertilizer requires the production of ammonia NH4. That is one nitrogen bonded to 4 hydrogens. The nitrogen can come from the air but the hydrogen has to come from some other compound.

Dumb question: why can't the hydrogen also come from the water vapor in the air?

That would be highly endothermic. The energy needed to separate the hydrogen from the water has to come from somewhere. If you meant "why can't we electrolyse that water to get the hydrogen", well yes of course that could be done, and that's what's being talked about (using water from some other source, though; why from the air?) But the water doesn't just decompose on its own.

You can, but doing so with renewable power would be under the rubric of "solving green hydrogen for industrial processes". In practice it's probably just easier to use renewably powered electrolysis to separate hydrogen and oxygen atoms from liquid water rather than try and use some chemical process to pull them out of the air.

Not dumb at all. Well, not exactly air, but that's how it's done. Air doesn't contain enough water, so you need to add some.

Currently nearly all ammonia is produced by "steam reformation" of methane in air (which is mainly nitrogen). Very hot steam, air, and methane are mixed. The carbon in the methane is released as carbon dioxide.

The idea is to take the methane out of the process.

Hydrogen is needed for the Haber-Bosch process for making ammonia. For steel making, hydrogen would be used for reduction of iron ores to iron metal (currently, most of that is done with coke).

There's also a large market for using hydrogen to upgrade petroleum (hydrodesulfurization), but that market continuing to exist presumes some way of dealing with the CO2. Direct air capture, perhaps. There could also be markets developed to make synfuels from CO2 and hydrogen, or using hydrogen to upgrade biomass to get more fuel (hydrodeoxygenation).

There are various smaller markets using hydrogen. For example, making one of the precursors to polyurethane involves hydrogen as a reagent, as does manufacture of hydrogen peroxide.

> hydrogen would be used for reduction of iron ores to iron metal

Wouldn't electric reduction cells like those used in aluminium production work as well? Why would you need an input of hydrogen?

Indeed, electrolytic smelting is around and is currently used to produce high purity iron.

There are a few engineering difficulties arising from the high temperatures required and the chemicals around.

And note that aluminum smelting also releases quite a lot of carbon dioxide for various reasons, one of them being consumption of the graphite electrodes.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolytic_iron

2. https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9878-electrolysis-may... (2006)

3. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10800-017-1143-5 (2018)

Hydrogen production via electrolysis has the property that it can be turned on and off nearly instantly. Aluminum electrolysis in molten cryolite must be kept running to maintain the temperature gradient between the molten electrolyte and the walls (if not maintained, either the walls overheat or the electrolyte freezes, ruining the cell.) The temperature for iron electrolysis in molten materials would be even higher.

One can imagine electrolyzing iron in aqueous solutions, but I understand this actually needs more energy than producing hydrogen and using that to reduce iron oxide. There is some electrolytic iron produced today, for applications that require very high purity (as high as 99.999%).

Is it a suitable option for powering ships?

Batteries needed electric vehicles are still expensive and seem to essentially be the bottleneck for mass change to EV.

The infrastructure needed to support battery electric vehicles seem to be expensive/complex to run sufficiently well in practice. In the US Tesla's supercharger network is often cited as a moat against other manufacturers. It's not even building the chargers - it's maintenance and compatibility. Charger network are a losing operation, but they are critical for adoption. Tesla affords this via huge margins, but that won't work for the rest of the market outside of the luxury segment.

Could it be that the BEV market (in the US at least) lends itself to monopolization? If so, hydrogen can make sense as a technology that does not rely on losing charger network to operate (just like no car manufacturer needs to subsidize fuel stations).

Counterpoint: I can't even refill my damn inkjet without the manufacturer doing their damnedest to get me to pay multiples for what's essentially commodity ink. I have no faith that hydrogen won't work the same.

There is little political will to regulate printer cartridges.

Cars on the other hand are heavily regulated.

The oil industry, I can assure you, would be quick to lobby for little standardization and regulation on hydrogen exactly for the reason they they want it to be in the same sorry state as printer ink

Don't you see even Tesla Supercharger is opening for all EVs? It won't work.

Yet those measures are being circumvented, because physically you can fill the cartridge, and legally, because this physical ability requires the manufacturer to take intrusive measures which are blocked by courts/legislators.

It's hard to force the consumer to not use their product. Conversely, it's hard to force the operator of a fast charger networks to do something. We can see other BEV manufacturer following Tesla's method (e.g. Rivian) setting up their own charger network. It's not a desirable future for such important market like transportation.

The Tesla network in Europe is compatible with everything else. All vendors are using CCS2. I know it's different in the US, but even there it seems to be changing.

The main advantage Tesla currently has is the size of the network as well as the seamless integration into their navigation system and automatic payment without a custom card. However this could be easily done by competitors if they would grasp the importance of it.

I am also wondering why I am forced to use random applications instead of having contactless interface for a debit card.

Yes, batteries are in short supply. We have been increasing battery supplies, energy density, and reducing nickel and cobalt for a decade. Theres's basically endless demand today. I'm sorry but your comments are basically standard and inccurate fud against EVs.

Tesla already announced they were going to make their us charging network support the us ccs standard for charging. In Europe they have been rolling it out to all cars (that all use the same standard plug) for a few years. Tesla chargers in Europe that are already working for competitor cars are not ruinously expensive. The reason tesla got so much market share was their competitors are very threatened by the transition to a completely new drive train, making their billions of dollars in investments in design of ICE engines, but also the entirety of mufflers, alternators, emissions controls, spark plugs just worthless scrap over time. Of course they all wanted to keep doing something like an ice engine, Toyota wanted hydrogen, etc.

> misunderstandings about hydrogen technology as an energy source

The biggest misconception being that hydrogen is an energy source. We currently do not capture any hydrogen from nature. Almost all industrial hydrogen is currently derived from fossil fuels.

This is a site that steals content and rehosts it and is posing as Reuters.com. Note that there is no proper listed author, the "About" is generic and vague (if you search "Here we will provide you only interesting content, which you will like very much" from their about with quotes on google, you'll see it's used by dozens of blogspam sites, likely a wordpress template placeholder). Please flag it and support original sources and avoid blogspam.

Recently I sometimes encounter random blogpost (but not seems to copied from news sites in English) like this, primary translated from Chinese. I admit that it's sometimes useful.

This is "filed a patent on", not "developed". They may just have a benchtop fuel cell model.

Range here is mostly about installed tank size. A Greyhound bus can travel about 2k kilometers on one fill-up.

Exactly this.

A modern sedan might get 40 miles to the gallon, but only has a tank of maybe 13 gallons (for a range of 500 miles / 800km).

Meanwhile the bus gets "only" 6 mpg but has a 200-gallon tank to compensate.

Hydrogen, also, has a much lower volumetric energy density that gasoline, diesel, or even LNG, and requires a bunch more equipment to maintain the cryogenic temperatutes required to keep it in a liquid state.

Funny to imagine how it burns in the fuel cell to maintain the cryogenic environment - thus it just depletes itself sitting in the same place.

Evaporating on running vehicle isn't problem since the vehicle needs vaporized hydrogen. Long term storing could be a problem but it's bus.

Once tank size gets to a certain point (the "range" of the driver/passengers for example) the only reason to get bigger is to reduce refueling time or because of fuel availability limitations.

This is part of the reason super long flights aren't as common as might be expected, because it's often significantly cheaper to have a layover, even if the plane could actually do the flight in one go - having to carry the second half fuel for the first half is heavy (and the extreme version of this is the rocket equation).

For hydrogen tanks in cars the weight is not really an issue. Volume is much more so.

Comparison to an airplane - where weight is basically everything - is pretty useless here.

I'm midway through a deep dive on PEM fuel cells. My first takeaway is, damn, so many researchers have tried to crack this nut over the years. We've been working on this technology since the 1960s.

A cheaper and more durable membrane would be a huge improvement on paper. In practice, of course, there are a million variables that make fuel cells difficult to use as a general-purpose tool. From all the issues with fuel storage, cost, mechanical durability, degradation, to problems with pollutants and fouling, and so on...

As a side note: The Toyota Mirai is absolutely fascinating to me. A 1kW hydrogen fuel cell on the open market goes for around $5k, and yet somehow Toyota has managed to put a 136kW stack on the road for under 50 grand!

You can even find one on the used market for around 12 grand. It's almost worth buying them up to use as mobile hydrogen power plants.

The problem with hydrogen is the lack of infrastructure. EVs have suffered from the same problem too but are arguably over the hump. Starting from zero again with range anxiety and no fueling stations sounds exhausting.

On top of that it’s way more difficult to install a hydrogen charging station than an ev-charging station.

On the other hand, in Poland at least, natural gas charging stations managed to get enough traction - every gas station ofers LPG here.

To add, LPG stations are pretty much everywhere in both Canada and the UK as well.

I found it interesting how Canada uses LPG even though the winters get cold enough that LPG isn't usable. I lived in Alberta for a year and they had a warning that when it got below -40 the buses would not run. School was not cancelled when this happened, you had to find an alternate way to get there. They did helpfully remind you that exposed skin would freeze in about 5 minutes.

Diesel vehicles begin to fail at about -10ºC so -40º is an improvement there.

There are extreme temperature vehicles that can handle below -40º with tank heaters and other things, but my gasoline cars started just fine at -40º and they weren't even garaged.

I had an LPG car in Poland, and winters were non-issue. Just had ti start it on regular fuel and switch to lpg after a minute or two - once the engine warmed up.

Hydrogen is a lot harder to store, because it makes metals brittle.

LPG != natural gas

Who needs infrastructure when you can drive 2000 km to the next gas station? :)

Electric grid capacity will be an interesting field to watch over the next 2 decades.

It's not like power lines all over the world have massive capacity reserves left. And with heat pumps becoming highly relevant right now for heating homes, there's going to be a lot of additional load on the grid.

Yes, EVs and heat pumps do also offer very useful application as flexible load to consume when supply is high and be switched off when electricity supply is low. But all this combined will make electric grids even more essential for keeping everyday life running.

H2 on the other hand with its inherent buffering effects would take some of these pressures off the electrical grid.

I really don't think that's true, we're not over the hump at all, maybe in California, but there is no way to charge an EV anywhere near me presently.

What the hell is this weird "news" site?

Next article is about MotoGP bikes switching from 2-strokes to 4. That was 20 years ago! And a poor translation at that..

https://www.ruetir.com/2022/10/30/motomondiale-2002-yamaha-y...

Seriously. I should probably enable an adblock or reader mode, but couldn't even be bothered to read the article it was so trashed with ads.

How far can it travel when it's not taking an emissions test?

This is nothing new, I remember an episode of “That’s Incredible!” from the early 80s that featured a bunch of college students that created a car that got 100 miles per gallon. The problem has always been that advancements in clean power get bought up by the oil companies and buried. That sucks for consumers in the hear and now, but it is a really smart move by big oil - if the petrol gravytrain ever runs dry big oil can fall back on their extensive patent portfolios and continue to be front and center in the energy game no matter where it is played.

I wouldn’t be surprised if all those wind farms that have popped up in the mid-west were actually owned by some subsidiary of an oil company.

I won’t speak to the extent that oil/fossil fuel business has suppressed clean energy (not that I’m disputing it, I think it’s more complicated though and don’t care to comment on that in this context). But I will say I’ve seen huge wind farms built atop huge, now-idle oil operations eg across large parts of central Texas. Never looked into whether they’re owned by the same oil companies but it sure wouldn’t surprise me.

There used to be nothing but farmland and horizon driving through Amarillo - at night it was like driving through a void except for the occasional (usually closed) gas station that left a light on. Today it’s a surreal alien landscape day and night with all the wind turbines and their aircraft warning lights.

I was testing something and forgot NextDNS was off.

There are so many Ads in a single article I am thinking if I should flag this.

Hydrogen is very appealing, but the lack of a distribution system makes it highly unlikely. It's hard to see Toyota and Honda continuing to make hydrogen cars much longer. Maybe for trucks?

I think it'll fizzle out. Hydrogen has too many disadvantages. Storage is difficult. Hydrogen will diffuse through most materials. Hydrogen can't be sensed by people, so you need special sensors throughout the vehicle and any filling stations. It burns with an almost invisible flame, and it burns in a very wide range of air/fuel mixtures. It's far more flammable than gasoline. You have to build out completely new infrastructure (unlike EVs that only require improving the capacity of our existing electrical grid). Oh, and hydrogen is expensive, and that's if you make it from natural gas (which creates CO2). If you want to use electrolysis of water, the price goes way up. At that point you're using hydrogen as an extremely inefficient battery that can't be charged with the existing power grid.

Distribution can be figured out, same as it was for fossil fuels and as it was/will be for electric energy. It would be a chicken and egg problem, for sure, however hydrogen has some big pros over electric, in that you can fuel up quite rapidly and get longer ranges, and doesn't have the harmful emissions of fossil fuel (how to produce the hydrogen in the first place is another issue, but the same is true for EV "fuel"). So I can see there could be a market for it as well as political will, if they can figure out the production side at a competitive price point. However, that's a big if.

I can see it entering special markets first, like long haul trucking, and become more widespread from that. Time will tell if that actually will happen.

It would seem to especially make sense for long-haul trucking where range is important (without having to lug around a huge set of batteries) and they can't afford long refuel times (other than overnight).

Only if you ignore the cost and poor end to end efficiency. The reason there is no distribution system is that the vast majority of hydrogen is consumed where it is produced. It's just very hard and expensive to move hydrogen around. Most hydrogen is used to produce ammonia for the purpose of creating fertilizers.

If you consider the whole chain of energy conversions, hydrogen has a very poor efficiency:

- electrolysis to split water; or super heated steam to split methane. 30%-40%: at best.

- compressing it for transport at typically 300bar: not sure; but it isn't free (theromdynamics). And also, some of the hydrogen is likely to slip away. Let's be generous and call it 80%

- transporting it by truck or via pipes takes more energy. Also hydrogen trucks have a pretty pathetic energy density compared to e.g. a truck load of diesel. You need a lot of trucks. Which need fuel (and let's assume that is hydrogen) At about 18:1 ratio. And some more of it slips away. So, let's be generous again and call that 95% efficient.

- fueling the car/truck uses compressors, pumps and cooling (expanding gases produce heat). This too is not free.

- finally you have the choice of using it in a fuel cell at 70-80% efficiency or burning it in a combustion engine; which is more like 40% efficiency.

If you multiply all of that you end up with the reason why using hydrogen for transport is an absolute last resort because of all the energy losses that you still have to pay for.

25% efficient would be pretty good. It's probably much worse than that. Some of it might be fixable but the laws of thermodynamics just aren't very flexible. There is no magical solution to many of these inefficiencies.

So 4x the fuel cost, or drive an electrical truck. Easy choice for a lot of companies. Especially if they can generate their own cheap power.

Electrolysis can be 95% efficient: https://newatlas.com/energy/hysata-efficient-hydrogen-electr...

That's 1242.7 miles.

In other words, Las Vegas to D.C. with a single refuel stop!

https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Las+Vegas,+NV/D.C.,+DC/@37.9...

For a nice background on the physics of hydrogen as a transport fuel, see a recent episode of the Fully Charged podcast.

Tldr: it's very much not a good fuel, in several dimensions.

ah that's what all the whitespace was

OP probably means this episode: https://pca.st/episode/7bd3ca34-cbde-4ebf-94aa-23083172efde

Hmms. 2k km isn't bad, but i don't consider this amazing either: my 12-year old big and heavy car can do 1300 km on a full tank. Sure, that's in ideal conditions, but so is this. And there is plenty of simple improvements that would make my car more efficient (weight & aerodynamics mainly).

2k isn't bad, but it's something that ought to be almost achievable with a modern and optimized ICE car as well nowadays.

Hydrogen combustion doesn't produce co2, optimize a petrol-fueled ICE all you want and it's still a problem WRT emissions.

I think the assumption is that hydrogen fuel would be produced via "green" electricity sources like wind/solar/nuclear.

There is that subtle issue of how do you get hydrogen.... Takes energy to make it.

You can just break apart water with very small tiny little hammers.

Finding the miniature dwarfs to do this is the tricky part.

gotta feed them though so still energy needed

Takes energy to mine+process the contents for and charge batteries too.

Batteries have 1000+ cycle life time (LFP batteries even more) and charging is very efficient. Not at all comparable.

A full hydrogen tank contain in the area of 5kg of fuel, which is a lot less fuel than the 70-100L of fuel your car presumably has on board.

A normal range for cars these days is 500-900km on a 40-60L tank, as carrying excessive fuel is bad for efficiency. 2000km is a very impressive metric, all things considered.

Fair enough - though my car "only" has a 60L tank, so I'd expect much better for modern cars (driven in optimal conditions).

A Toyota Prius in good conditions gets better than 4 liters/100km mileage - so you only need an 80 liter, or 20 gallon, tank to make it a 2000km vehicle.

I've read Company X develops Hydrogen car for decades now. Not an expert on feasibility, but I doubt any of these cos. have the guts to start a new category like this, and will wait for somebody else to prove value first. This is how Tesla prospered in the first place.

BMW apparently prepares to release a hydrogen x1 series.

I've gotten used to the idea that it seems like if I get a solar roof and power system that I can charge my electric car during the zombie apocalypse, where as AFAIK, I can't easily create gasoline or enough hydrogen for a hydrogen powered car.

Right?

Hydrogen can be created using electricity and water. Who will create a new battery once yours dies out?

That battery will last longer than the catalysts in your hydrogen production system.

Hydrogen is simple to produce if you have access to water and electricity. Gasoline is much harder to do, though.

Yes but in quantities I can use the drive my car?

You also have to compress it to very high pressures to be able to store a useful amount of it.

If it's simple, why practically no one is doing it?

Last I heard, 99% of all H2 was produced out of methane. Perhaps it's a bit better now?

No, it's not. Electrolysis is extremely inefficient. There are some modern developments with advanced catalysts, but it's not something an average person can do.

You need a lot of solar to charge a vehicle but it is attainable.

You'd be better off with something like a M35A2 with the multi-fuel engine for actual apocalypse, because that thing can burn damn near anything you can find (you could run it for years on engine oil drained from mad-max style hulks). Someone may have even modified one to run on LPG also.

My roof (North California, 11 kW system) usually produces more than my driving consumes. Have been running this for a near-decade. Totally doable. I'd still love to get my PV system separated from PG&E's grabby hands but I'm not sure that's legal.

Anyway all fuel cell vehicles are series-hybrid system, so solar power can be charged to the battery. Battery is small but also PV surface is small.

Is there a safe, legal, reasonable way to install a gas tank in my trunk if I wanted to sacrifice storage for distance? My car could get 2000km.

Yes, Jerrycans. Seriously.

+ you can easily swap back to arbitrary storage once you are finished with your rare 2000 km journey.

For all it's issues, petroleum is extremely convenient in that it can be transferred and contained in such a low tech way with (relative) safety.

Sigh. This is the kind of obvious, simple, sensible answer that I feel silly not immediately considering.

The only downside (shared by my initial thought) is that they aren’t collapsible. So that volume is committed even 1/4 way through my trip

Why can't they be? You want a fuel bladder: https://www.liquidcontainment.com.au/category/2/Fuel-Bladder...

When I think “Jerry can” I think the very specific rigid 20L vessel. I guess we can call other things a Jerry can too.

I’m curious if these are legally allowed in Canada. If so they seem decent!

"Legality" is going to vary wildly - if you are carrying fuel in the trunk, you're probably pretty restricted, but you may be able to get away with various other mounting options - and I'm sure you can buy them even if you can't run them.

I'd also search out "off road" people and forums, though they may not specialize in your vehicle, they probably know the various rules and regulations.

https://www.zuksoffroadcanada.ca/Gas-Tank-15-Gallon_p_997.ht... does exist, so I'm sure there's things out there. People modifying vehicles for Nunavut or the Australian Outback would be places I'd start.

So do things like : https://masterhitch.com/catalog/truck-suv-accessories/auxili... but I'd be a bit wary of bolting gas tanks to the rear bumper/trailer hitch myself.

And many rules will stop applying once you are "off road" whatever that means in your area.

They are legal and quite popular (for motorcycle raids across large unhabitated areas) in many countries; maybe also in Canada, but I am not a lawyer.

They sell those! They are used frequently in rescue settings. The can is basically a big cubical heavy plastic bag.

Your alternative is of course to fill some plastic bags from your local grocery store like this [1] lady did.

[1] https://twitter.com/FiendishlyYours/status/13919904872220016...

I tried that but the fire marshal told me no.

Holy crap, I don't even have words for that.... just why? It's also quite toxic and she's going to be covered in it now.

https://www.summitracing.com/search/part-type/fuel-cells

This site has them up to 60 gallons or ~230 liters

https://www.summitracing.com/search/part-type/fuel-cells?N=c...

Hydrogen cars are incredibly inefficient.

This is Volkswagen, so they actually got 20km and the rest was measured rolling downhill with the engine off.

Somewhat off-topic: why "2k kilometers" instead of 2 megameters? I do realize that in daily life people rarely use distances of that order of magnitude, but the semantic connections between kilobits<>megabits, kilowatts<>megawatts appears to be entirely accessible to essentially all adults, so why use the awkward "thousands of kilometers" instead?

We would only need 4% of the range of mega to express any earthly distance. I guess that's why we don't bother.

Just because people are so used to kilometers and for many people the conversion is too difficult. You overestimate the intelligence and education of average adults and I am dead serious about this, I did studied this a bit.

I'm admittedly American, but I've literally never heard "megameters" used outside of a classroom. I know what 1000km is like without thinking, but I have no immediate intuition for a megameter is unless I think about it.

Be the change.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com