[48snickers]

> We already have a existing electrical infrastructure and the reality is that most people aren't driving 400 miles every single day, so don't need to be constantly refueling.

For the millions of people that rent in high density buildings and work in office buildings, there typically is no charging infrastructure available either at home or work. Sure, the buildings are wired to the grid, but putting enough chargers to support a volume greater than first-adopters is extremely expensive. In the office building I work in (40 stories), there are exactly two chargers to support approximately 1000 parked cars. In the building I live in, there are exactly zero chargers, and there are no wall outlets either. Not an uncommon scenario. I'm not arguing that hydrogen is the solution to this scarcity problem, just that the existing infrastructure isn't adequate either.

[toomuchtodo]

Infrastructure costs money. Does this mean it should not be built?

[48snickers]

I didn't imply that at all. It isn't clear to me _what_ infrastructure should be built, given that there's not a solution that can service everyone currently. I think a case can be made for hydrogen being a better infrastructure play than extending the electric grid. It has some nice qualities, for example the ability (noted in the linked article) to be produced in a hyper-distributed manner.

[edent]

I presume these people park somewhere? In the UK my office provides a bog-standard 240V 13A socket - that fully charges me throughout the day.

Installing 1,000 normal electrical sockets in a car park is a chore, but it's hardly the construction project of the century.