Discuss What if Toyota’s Hydrogen engine succeeds?

[Sunny]

So those that think it wont work, why is that?

2nd law of thermodynamics which results in this -

Infrastructure.

(IMO) That is really just a symptom.

Reality is, despite being most common element in the Universe, Hydrogen doesn't exist freely on Earth anywhere. You have to spend energy to extract it.
And it takes more energy to extract H2 than the extracted H2 itself can release by oxidation.
Which makes it completely dumb idea (outside niche applications) - why would you not just use the energy directly that you already have instead of spending it to extract H2 and then using the energy from the H2 all the while wasting a bunch of it?
And that is before even the considerable amount of energy you would need to expend to compress/cool H2 to make the volume manageable.

Other ancillary reasons - Short of radioactive substances, Hydrogen is the one of the most difficult substabne to work with - it can diffuse through even solid metal making it a horrible medium to store energy with. And of course, being odorless, invisible and highly inflammable is hardly endearing attributes.

And last but not least - why? It has no advantage over BEVs bar just one - charging time. And at the current rate of progress with BEVs, even that one advantage will disappear before H2 infrastructure is anywhere close to viable.

 

[Rolf]

I do think Hydrogen has a way forward in the near future if Saudi Arabia has anything to do with it, instead of focusing on oil production the next step for the Saudis will be producing Green and Blue Hydrogen Plants using 1) Renewable Energies electricity (such as Wind and Solar) electrolysis generated Hydrogen (Green) and Natural Gas split into Hydrogen and CO2 and capturing the latter (Blue).

Saudi Arabia is set to be a major player in hydrogen

The use of hydrogen as an energy source has gained a lot of attention in recent years. Up to a few years ago, little was known or debated about hydrogen energy and its economic and environmental impact on society. I myself had little knowledge of the hydrogen energy market until recently. The...

www.arabnews.com

Saudi Arabia is set to be a major player in hydrogen

Saudi Aramco employee refuels a Hydrogen power vehicle at the first recently inaugurated hydrogen fueling station in Dhahran Techno Valley Science Park, in Saudi Arabia’s Eastern Province, Sunday, June 27, 2021. (AP)

The use of hydrogen as an energy source has gained a lot of attention in recent years. Up to a few years ago, little was known or debated about hydrogen energy and its economic and environmental impact on society. I myself had little knowledge of the hydrogen energy market until recently.
The hydrogen energy market is one that is still taking shape with many divided views among experts, lobbyists, and environment advocates on how friendly some types of hydrogen are to the environment and how the substance is used to improve the image of energy producers.
As a quick background, hydrogen energy is produced from, obviously, hydrogen, the most abundant chemical element in the universe. It can be produced as a gas or liquid, or made part of other materials. It has many uses such as fuel for transport or heating, a way to store electricity, or a raw material in industrial processes.
There are many types of hydrogen, including blue and green. Green hydrogen is the cleaner version and is produced through electrolysis, a process of separating water into hydrogen and oxygen using electricity produced from renewable sources, leaving no damage to the environment.
On the other hand, blue hydrogen is produced by splitting natural gas into hydrogen and CO2, but the latter is captured and then stored. Blue hydrogen production is friendly to the environment as the greenhouse gases are captured, mitigating the environmental impact on the planet.
Saudi Arabia is growing its production of both green and blue hydrogen. The Kingdom’s large natural gas reserves and the huge associated gas it produces along with crude oil enable it to produce blue hydrogen. This is about a form of the fuel that is made when gas is reformed and the carbon dioxide byproduct is captured.
The first green hydrogen plant in Saudi Arabia with an estimated cost of SR19 billion ($5 billion) will be jointly owned by Air Products and ACWA Power, a Riyadh-based power developer 50 percent owned by the Kingdom’s sovereign wealth fund.

Saudi Arabia is one of the few G20 economies or OPEC members investing heavily in green and renewable energy.
Basil M.K. Al-Ghalayini

The plant will be based in NEOM, the new giga-city along the borders of Egypt and Jordan. The plant will be powered by 4 gigawatts of wind and solar power while production is due to begin in 2025.
But Saudi Aramco is also considering producing green hydrogen, thus competing with NEOM and increasing the Saudi market share of this important energy source.
Aramco is looking into synergies between the two types of hydrogen, according to its chief technology officer Ahmed Al-Khowaiter.
In an interview with Bloomberg, he emphasized that costs for producing blue hydrogen were probably around one-fifth of those of green hydrogen, at least at today’s solar and wind prices. That would not be an issue in the future as many analysts expect green hydrogen to become as cheap in 10 years time.
Saudi Arabia will be a major player in the hydrogen market as it is one of the few G20 economies or OPEC members investing heavily in green and renewable energy. NEOM, with its unique profile of sun and wind to convert water to hydrogen, aims to generate a clean source of energy on a massive scale.
To quantify its impact, this first hydrogen plant will save the world over 3 million tons of CO2 emissions annually and eliminate smog-forming emissions and other pollutants from the equivalent of almost 1 million cars. And this is just the start.

 

[Sunny]

I do think Hydrogen has a way forward in the near future if Saudi Arabia has anything to do with it,

No offense to any country, but 2nd law of thermodynamics says otherwise.

Natural Gas split into Hydrogen and CO2 and capturing the latter (Blue).

Which brings us to the gist of the whole Hydrogen argument - a rather feeble attempt by fossil fuel lobby to fester on.

If you are going to use natural gas, just as well use it straight up to generate electricity with it and use that electricity directly - you net around ~40% efficiency to the wheels.

Versus break it down into H2 and then compress/liquify it, distribute it and use that H2 in a fuel cell to convert back to electricity to net around ~20% (thanks to 2nd law of Thermodynamics and entropy). Makes no sense.

 

[Rolf]

No offense to any country, but 2nd law of thermodynamics says otherwise.


Which brings us to the gist of the whole Hydrogen argument - a rather feeble attempt by fossil fuel lobby to fester on.

If you are going to use natural gas, just as well use it straight up to generate electricity with it and use that electricity directly - you net around ~40% efficiency to the wheels.

Versus break it down into H2 and then compress/liquify it, distribute it and use that H2 in a fuel cell to convert back to electricity to net around ~20% (thanks to 2nd law of Thermodynamics and entropy). Makes no sense.

Yes, you are right in terms of efficiency a BEV that charges from a wall socket do waste less energy compared to a Hydrogen-powered vehicle that will generate electric propulsion, but economies of scale production could benefit hydrogen power in the future as it doesn't rely on using an already fragile power generation system in many countries. There is a big push forward for BEV vehicles but all countries will have to ramp up power generation to cope with the extra demands of BEV. Many countries are facing problems lately with their power generation, China has a huge number of blackouts due to coal shortages and the huge increase in coal prices. Europe also facing problems caused by shortages and high prices of Natural Gas. The cost and time of building new power stations are huge, solar energy and wind energy do have limitations in certain countries that don't have a lot of space, don't have strong sun cover, and don't have a lot of wind. Solar energy-powered homes could work, but countries won't fit this free of cost to households, they will charge an arm and a leg to fit this to most homes, especially low-income areas that can't afford it.

 

[Sunny]

Yes, you are right in terms of efficiency a BEV that charges from a wall socket do waste less energy compared to a Hydrogen-powered vehicle that will generate electric propulsion, but economies of scale production could benefit hydrogen power in the future as it doesn't rely on using an already fragile power generation system in many countries

Except it does. Even more so. You need even more energy to extract Hydrogen and then use it than you would if you just used the energy directly. So how does it make any sense whatsoever in a world where energy is scare, as you portrayed it, to waste a bulk of it to extract Hydrogen when you could just use the energy directly way more efficiently?

 

[kingjr9000]

Personally, I think EGS (Enhanced Geothermal Systems) would help greatly in regards to the grid and hydrogen production.

 

[klier]

Maybe in 50 billion years.

We said the same for electric charging stations, or have we already forgotten this?

 

[WBarnes]

2nd law of thermodynamics which results in this -

(IMO) That is really just a symptom.

Reality is, despite being most common element in the Universe, Hydrogen doesn't exist freely on Earth anywhere. You have to spend energy to extract it.
And it takes more energy to extract H2 than the extracted H2 itself can release by oxidation.
Which makes it completely dumb idea (outside niche applications) - why would you not just use the energy directly that you already have instead of spending it to extract H2 and then using the energy from the H2 all the while wasting a bunch of it?
And that is before even the considerable amount of energy you would need to expend to compress/cool H2 to make the volume manageable.

Other ancillary reasons - Short of radioactive substances, Hydrogen is the one of the most difficult substabne to work with - it can diffuse through even solid metal making it a horrible medium to store energy with. And of course, being odorless, invisible and highly inflammable is hardly endearing attributes.

And last but not least - why? It has no advantage over BEVs bar just one - charging time. And at the current rate of progress with BEVs, even that one advantage will disappear before H2 infrastructure is anywhere close to viable.

Not really a true picture, since the electricity used to charge EVs isn't simply available, it has to be generated. Steam turbines are 65-90% efficient, gas turbines 20-25% efficient. Solar panels are around 20% efficient and inverters are ~95% efficient. Wind turbines have a maximum theoretical efficiency of only 27% by the Rayleigh formula.

Except it does. Even more so. You need even more energy to extract Hydrogen and then use it than you would if you just used the energy directly. So how does it make any sense whatsoever in a world where energy is scare, as you portrayed it, to waste a bulk of it to extract Hydrogen when you could just use the energy directly way more efficiently?

Because certain processes have natural waste heat that could be used for hydrolysis, e.g. nuclear (fission or fusion). Concentrated solar power plants (not photovoltaic) could also be used for hydrolysis.

It's also important to consider grid implications. EV rollout would require huge changes to the transmission and distribution networks, hydrogen wouldn't. That said, hydrogen has setbacks too in that it's not easy to store or transport. With gasoline, no smoking is kind of a good idea, with hydrogen it's definitely life or death and shit, even the wrong conditions on a very hot day could probably set it off.

Personally the idea of keeping combustion engines appeals to me but I must admit that I don't fully understand the science of why emitting water vapour (a greenhouse gas) actually solves the problem, but according to the experts it does because the atmosphere is very good at handling extra water vapour, but not CO2, and certainly not particulates.

 

[kingjr9000]

Sunny, you do realize that most people dont really care about efficiency, right? Dude, we literally have taken an inefficient fuel source, and used it in an inefficient manner, and most people don’t even care. Most people can’t even tell you the difference between a battery powered vehicle and a gas one, yet somehow they care about a few percentage of efficiency? Most people only know gasoline and it’s style of usage. Hydrogen replicates that to the best of its abilities, and unlike batteries, it has a common background with gasoline in its usage. Most people know how to fuel up with gas and most people can wrap their heads around a substitute that mimics gas.

There are several reasons why hydrogen should be followed up and not simply disavowed because of a silly reason like efficiency: manufacturing, jobs, people that dont have access to a lv2 charger, apartments and buildings that aren’t setup/designed with chargers in mind.

A fuel cell can work or even a standard ICE that can be retrofitted to run on hydrogen would give a lot more people an option on what vehicle they drive, versus just forcing them into one type of vehicle and calling it a day. Personally, I hope hydrogen takes off, just so people that have those ICE related jobs, or even those that realize that hydrogen can do things batteries can’t, can get their wish.

Imagine if the new hummer had an hydrogen fuel cell, or even an H-ICE, it would a lot less, and get more range, and probably tow more than what it can currently tow now.

 

[WBarnes]

It's not like Lithium grows on trees either, it has to be mined and the batteries manufactured. Ditto for neodymium. Extra weight of EVs, more rubber used. I certainly wouldn't write off hydrogen at this point. I wouldn't write of EVs either though, maybe we can have both.

 

[kingjr9000]

Update regarding the EU and hydrogen.

Europe Turns To Green Hydrogen As Production Costs Are Set To Fall
BY SAM D. SMITH | POSTED ONDECEMBER 3, 2021 12


The EU could soon increase their output of green hydrogenas production costs look set to tumble. The claims were made by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, citing a rise in gas prices, meaning that so-called “grey hydrogen” (hydrogen produced using fossil fuels) has become more expensive.

Von der Leyen said green hydrogen, which is obtained by passing renewably-produced electricity through water to split the element from oxygen, could cost less than 1.8 euros ($2.04) per kilogram by 2030 — down from 6 euros ($6.80) per kilo in 2020 and less than last year’s average of 2 euros ($2.27) for grey hydrogen.
As European nations increase capacity, green hydrogen production costs have been steadily falling as they’re likely to surpass current production targets by 2030. According to a report from Reuters, EU climate policy chief Frans Timmermans said he expected the EU and its neighbors to exceed the target of installing electrolyzers capable of 40 GWs.
Related: Japanese Vehicle Manufacturers Hatch A Plan To Save The Internal Combustion Engine

With the future economics looking favorable towards green hydrogen, it could be a way to cut greenhouse emissions from heavy industry while countries look to cut carbon emissions under the EU’s trading system.
It’s also positive news for manufacturers who have continued to develop hydrogen tech for automotive applications. Japanese manufacturers, including Toyota, Subaru, Kawasaki, and Yamaha recently announced a strategy to collaboratively explore hydrogen use in internal combustion engines, which includes Toyota’s CEO driving a hydrogen-powered race car.
Meanwhile, Hyundai announced earlier this year that it plans to open two new hydrogen fuel cell plants in South Korea. The automaker wants to accelerate the growth of its hydrogen business as it looks to grow into new markets, such as construction machinery and logistics equipment.
And the EU isn’t alone in its ambitions to drive down the price of sustainable hydrogen. British energy supplier BP plans to launch a new large-scale green and blue hydrogen facility in the UK. It follows similar moves from Petroleum Development Oman in the middle east, as well as South Korea’s Kogas Tech.

 

[Matski]

Not going to debate whether what von der Leyen is claiming is accurate, but as manufacturing costs, these aren't representative of pump costs. To put Hydrogen in a FCEV in the UK costs £10-15 /kg. A Nexo gets 119km/kg, so best case scenario is 8.4p/km. A Kona requires 14.7kwh/100km, in worst case scenarios, that would cost 10.2p/km here assuming you were using a public IONITY charger without a subscription - with a subscription, that could be as low as 3.6p, and if charging at home, as little as roughly 2.3p/km*.

Shell claim that 'Shell Hydrogen' at forecourts in the UK is Green Hydrogen... so the 70% cost saving that vdL is talking about is relevant in this context. Let's say the best case £10/kg applies and vdL's statement that Green Hydrogen was €6/kg (I assume this indicates wholesale price)... we can assume around 50% of the cost at the pump is wholesale, and 50% is distribution, tax, duty, retailer profit etc. With the 2030 estimates, this would bring the price at pump down to £6.50/kg, making the cost per km for the Nexo example above 5.4p/km...

*As a personal baseline for me, with the average economy of my 320Si and a local cost for super unleaded of £1.65/litre, I have a per km cost of 23p/km. 10 times that of home charging an EV. A car running on typical fuel and getting 35mpg would be more like 12p/km

Anyway... in real terms, I'm not sure a reduction in the cost of Hydrogen is really that much of a game changer. There is a saving, but it's not whopping. And I can't help but come back to infrastructure...

It appears there's 11 public hyrdogen refuelling locations in the UK.
There's 8,000+ Petrol stations (~50,000 pumps +)
There's 17,000+ Public (or semi-public) EV charging locations (~48,000 electrical connectors of one sort or another)

At a cost of around £2,000,000 to £3,000,000 per location, I don't think it's feasible for Hydrogen to reach the coverage that drivers are used to. 8000 × £2,000,000 = £16 billion investment.

The number of EV charging locations could grow an absolutely ridiculous amount for that investment, £16Bn invested at an average price of £800 per wall box would cover 20 million properties - there's only 26 million properties in the UK, and by my estimation half of them** probably couldn't have/need a wall box anyway!

** I looked at the census data for the UK based on dwelling type, size and value, made some fixed assumptions and came up with 10.6 million homes that could, out of 26.1m total homes.

Granted, the EV charging infrastructure numbers aren't necessarily totally representative (different levels of charging, different connectors, access restrictions etc.), and it needs to be higher than fossil fuel stations by a factor equivalent to the increased recharging/refuelling time... but the cost and space required is a fraction of hydrogen. And there is potential personal/private infrastructure on a level that hydrogen likely simply cannot ever achieve i.e. those 10.6m homes I mentioned above. (And, to Sunny's point, why would you ever home-electrolyse when you could just home charge?)

For all it's inefficiencies as a fuel/energy storage medium, Hydrogen is likely deliverable at a cost that's fairly comparable to EV's in many real world scenarios and is already cheaper than what most motorists are used to. The savings for the motorist are a severely diminished return in the face of the total lack of convenience, and the massive investment required to get it off the ground.

 

[Cashmere]

Nothing screams “the future has arrived” like revving your engine and seeping steam emanating from your pipes. @klier loves this stuff.

 

[kingjr9000]

Not going to debate whether what von der Leyen is claiming is accurate, but as manufacturing costs, these aren't representative of pump costs. To put Hydrogen in a FCEV in the UK costs £10-15 /kg. A Nexo gets 119km/kg, so best case scenario is 8.4p/km. A Kona requires 14.7kwh/100km, in worst case scenarios, that would cost 10.2p/km here assuming you were using a public IONITY charger without a subscription - with a subscription, that could be as low as 3.6p, and if charging at home, as little as roughly 2.3p/km*.

Shell claim that 'Shell Hydrogen' at forecourts in the UK is Green Hydrogen... so the 70% cost saving that vdL is talking about is relevant in this context. Let's say the best case £10/kg applies and vdL's statement that Green Hydrogen was €6/kg (I assume this indicates wholesale price)... we can assume around 50% of the cost at the pump is wholesale, and 50% is distribution, tax, duty, retailer profit etc. With the 2030 estimates, this would bring the price at pump down to £6.50/kg, making the cost per km for the Nexo example above 5.4p/km...

*As a personal baseline for me, with the average economy of my 320Si and a local cost for super unleaded of £1.65/litre, I have a per km cost of 23p/km. 10 times that of home charging an EV. A car running on typical fuel and getting 35mpg would be more like 12p/km

Anyway... in real terms, I'm not sure a reduction in the cost of Hydrogen is really that much of a game changer. There is a saving, but it's not whopping. And I can't help but come back to infrastructure...

It appears there's 11 public hyrdogen refuelling locations in the UK.
There's 8,000+ Petrol stations (~50,000 pumps +)
There's 17,000+ Public (or semi-public) EV charging locations (~48,000 electrical connectors of one sort or another)

At a cost of around £2,000,000 to £3,000,000 per location, I don't think it's feasible for Hydrogen to reach the coverage that drivers are used to. 8000 × £2,000,000 = £16 billion investment.

The number of EV charging locations could grow an absolutely ridiculous amount for that investment, £16Bn invested at an average price of £800 per wall box would cover 20 million properties - there's only 26 million properties in the UK, and by my estimation half of them** probably couldn't have/need a wall box anyway!

** I looked at the census data for the UK based on dwelling type, size and value, made some fixed assumptions and came up with 10.6 million homes that could, out of 26.1m total homes.

Granted, the EV charging infrastructure numbers aren't necessarily totally representative (different levels of charging, different connectors, access restrictions etc.), and it needs to be higher than fossil fuel stations by a factor equivalent to the increased recharging/refuelling time... but the cost and space required is a fraction of hydrogen. And there is potential personal/private infrastructure on a level that hydrogen likely simply cannot ever achieve i.e. those 10.6m homes I mentioned above. (And, to Sunny's point, why would you ever home-electrolyse when you could just home charge?)

For all it's inefficiencies as a fuel/energy storage medium, Hydrogen is likely deliverable at a cost that's fairly comparable to EV's in many real world scenarios and is already cheaper than what most motorists are used to. The savings for the motorist are a severely diminished return in the face of the total lack of convenience, and the massive investment required to get it off the ground.

Wait. Why would other people think of hydrogen as a battery replacement, especially for a home refueling aspect? If someone wants a battery vehicle, they most likely wont be persuaded to switch to hydrogen for personal reasons, but for those that want a gasoline like lifestyle, it would make sense for them.

Could you clarify the bold? I’m not following.

 

[kingjr9000]

Nothing screams “the future has arrived” like revving your engine and seeping steam emanating from your pipes. @klier loves this stuff.

Where did that come from? What vehicle is that?

 

[Matski]

Wait. Why would other people think of hydrogen as a battery replacement, especially for a home refueling aspect? If someone wants a battery vehicle, they most likely wont be persuaded to switch to hydrogen for personal reasons, but for those that want a gasoline like lifestyle, it would make sense for them.

Could you clarify the bold? I’m not following.

Simply to point out that, although home charging isn't the answer to all EV charging woes, it is a benefit the Hydrogen can't match. It might be a bit of a random pull in fairness, but it recently came up in a conversation regarding the conversion of UK natural gas boilers to 100% Hydrogen boilers.

 

[WBarnes]

Simply to point out that, although home charging isn't the answer to all EV charging woes, it is a benefit the Hydrogen can't match. It might be a bit of a random pull in fairness, but it recently came up in a conversation regarding the conversion of UK natural gas boilers to 100% Hydrogen boilers.

Partially agree, but the whole reason home charging is a thing is because it takes so damn long to charge and the charger has to be installed. With hydrogen you can just fill up quickly and there's probably a benefit as regards range too, so less filling. I have a battery lawnmower and a petrol one and the battery one is an infinitely bigger pain in the ass.

 

[Matski]

Partially agree, but the whole reason home charging is a thing is because it takes so damn long to charge and the charger has to be installed.

That's not the whole reason at all. Even with my paltry mileage (admittedly with a hideously thirsty car and a penchant for expensive petrol) a wall box would pay for itself within 12 months. It also means, that for those with a wall box, most will not have to visit anywhere else to charge their car most of the time. The amount of journeys people make in the UK (on average) that exceed the range of even sub-par EV's is minimal. The time aspect doesn't matter because the car is sat outside, or in the garage, doing sod all anyway.

It's also likely to be the cheapest way of adding range to your car there is.

Home charging is an absolute advantage for EV's IF you can do it. I fully appreciate the IF is a major factor in a very large portion of peoples buying decisions, but if your choice is home charging, or having to hunt down one of a double digit number of charging stations in the UK, what would you choose?

I have a battery lawnmower and a petrol one and the battery one is an infinitely bigger pain in the ass.

My petrol one gave up the ghost this year (in a cloud of smoke the enveloped most of the close), so I've been looking at battery ones for next spring - I can't see how it could be that much of a pain in the ass - my drill is battery powered, my impact driver is battery powered, my circular saw is battery powered, my reciprocating saw is battery powered, how hard can a battery powered lawnmower be?

 

[WBarnes]

That's not the whole reason at all. Even with my paltry mileage (admittedly with a hideously thirsty car and a penchant for expensive petrol) a wall box would pay for itself within 12 months. It also means, that for those with a wall box, most will not have to visit anywhere else to charge their car most of the time. The amount of journeys people make in the UK (on average) that exceed the range of even sub-par EV's is minimal. The time aspect doesn't matter because the car is sat outside, or in the garage, doing sod all anyway.

It's also likely to be the cheapest way of adding range to your car there is.

Home charging is an absolute advantage for EV's IF you can do it. I fully appreciate the IF is a major factor in a very large portion of peoples buying decisions, but if your choice is home charging, or having to hunt down one of a double digit number of charging stations in the UK, what would you choose?

I think you may have mis understood my point, my point was not that home chargers are a bad idea for EVs, they're a good idea for EVs, but the reason it's a good idea, and hence 'a thing', is because charging takes so damn long. If everyone had to drive to a station and park there to recharge, it would be bloody insane, even if there were the same number of charging stations as petrol stations. Hydrogen, like petrol, would not have that problem. So when someone mentions home-charging as an advantage over hydrogen, it's a red-herring, because it's not particularly energy efficient for everyone in a country, or nearly everyone, to have a home charger manufactured and installed, there are also potential grid issues if it were the case too. The infrastructure for hydrogen on the other hand would be fairly close to the one used for petrol, albeit with more emphasis on fire safety.

My petrol one gave up the ghost this year (in a cloud of smoke the enveloped most of the close), so I've been looking at battery ones for next spring - I can't see how it could be that much of a pain in the ass - my drill is battery powered, my impact driver is battery powered, my circular saw is battery powered, my reciprocating saw is battery powered, how hard can a battery powered lawnmower be?

It can be very bad, trust me. All the things you mentioned are very short duration use and relatively low power, a battery lawnmower (GTech) has to be used for 30 minutes to 1 hour to cut two gardens in my case and it can't do that on one battery, in fact if you leave your lawn more than one week it can't do it at all. It's just plain shit at cutting grass and regularly stalls out when it encounters anything approaching long grass. It's really a lawn-trimmer not a lawnmower. A 3.5hp Hyundai petrol mower on the other hand makes light work of cutting grass, does it in half the time and it takes so long between fill ups that if you fill two 5L jerry cans you're sorted for the year. The only issue with it is that, if you're not careful with the throttle, it can take you for a walk.

 

[CrunchSlaughtered]

In 10 years we will have batteries that are: 2 to 3 times cheaper; 2 to 3 times lighter for the same stored power compared to the current batteries, they will be able to be charged with 500 kW and even more, they will have no content of elements that are hard to extract.
So no chance for any currently known technogy to compete with this.