Op-Ed: Fuel Time For Fuel Cells And Gas Is So Yesterday


Light weight vehicles driving inside the US national average miles, requiring fueling by a liquid or gas, will take more time from your life than charging with a properly selected plug in.

In the search for gasoline replacement, one of the perceived attractions for compressed natural gas (CNG) and fuel cell vehicles (FCVs) is fuel time. It has been repeatedly stated that fuel times will be less. Those who question the EV revolution start by talking about infrequent long range trips taking hours to charge opposed to discussing something that happens more than 50 times a year (filling up weekly). According to all over the media, the average person stops at a gas station 5-7 times a month and typically is within 1-2 miles of where they work or live. While standing at the pump, consumers have 3-5 minutes of refueling time. With 6 trips x 4 minutes we have 24 minutes per month, or 38 hours spent standing at the gas pump through the 8 year warranty period of many EVs.  Initially, it is going to be much worse for CNG and hydrogen.

For most EV owners, they have moved past the old fueling paradigm.  They have learned the distinction between time fueling vs time waiting. In order to understand better how they are doing this, let us look at some driving range data from the Department of Energy.

US Travel Data

US National Driving Range Data

Per the Department of Energy, on average, a lightweight vehicle travels: 34 miles per day x 5 days per week x 49 weeks per year = 8330 miles.  Of which 4582 are city and 3749 are highway. In addition to these miles 3596 annual miles are driven for other trips with 80 percent or 2877 of those additional miles being highway.

The Center for Sustainable Energy in California shows that of EV drivers surveyed, 66% drive inside of 30 miles per day while 94% of those surveyed drive under 45 miles per day. The above data shows that current driving ranges of current EVs will support the majority of national driving needs.

As for the additional trips outside of the regular commute, more than half  of the 290,000+ PEVs sold in the US do not require any wait time on road trips for they either are a plug in hybrid (PHEV) or have a gasoline range extender (EREV) like the Chevy Volt and BMW i3 Rex.

Infrastructure today and tomorrow

The latest fashion

The latest fashion


While comparing the present, 5, 10, 20 years, etc., let us agree to make the comparisons of all technologies at the same place on the time line. Let us please compare current EV technology to current FCV and CNG technology. Then future EV technology claims to future CNG and FCV claims, within identical time periods.

So what about the charging time for an EV? The primary place for EV charging will happen at home. There is no waiting on the charge in the residential charging model. Based on this, a very large percentage of our charging infrastructure is currently in place which makes the current EV less time consuming to charge today. And if the effort of plugging in still annoys, wireless charging is already available for many major models.

Time Travel with all technologies please!

FCVs want to discuss the fueling capability of tomorrow and equate how it will be quickly available to everyone and faster than waiting on a charge. For starters, let us look just fifteen years forward. We could look beyond 2030, for it will take fuel cells longer than that to implement their infrastructure, but I choose 2030 because EV infrastructure, for the most part, will be in place for both street parking and major highway quick charging. Furthermore, battery technology will very likely have reached the nirvana of $100/kWh making EVs the most economical choice as well. Even as early as 2017-2018, we will see a number of BEV offerings in the 200 mile range with quick charging options starting to arrive.

Some are quick to jump back to present time to point out that many apartment and condominium dwellers are currently without the capability to charge as well as quick chargers for extended travel. Comparing apples to apples, we don’t have an FCV infrastructure at all outside of parts of California. If we stay on track and compare 2030 charging to 2030 fueling, it is not unreasonable to see that this charging infrastructure will be available in most cases while heavily subsidized fuel cell infrastructure only begins to arrive.

Gas and Fuel Cells used as an extender

Come back now

Come back now

Fuel Cell Vehicles (FCVs) want to compare themselves only to gas cars (ICEs) and Pure battery electric vehicles (BEVs), focusing on extended trip scenarios, primarily due to range compared to first generation BEVs. They do not want to be compared to Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) or better still Extended Range Electric Vehicles (EREVs) for their arguments diminish with sometimes months between sharing the pumping ritual, opting heavily on zero wait/off hour charging.

The FCV is already equipped with an electric motor propelling the drive train and a small battery like that found in a modern day hybrid (HEV).  The FCV simply needs to provide the extra battery to limit its range anxiety. The electric BMW i3 Rex offers a range extender as an option. It stands to reason that in the near future at $300/kWh, the FCV could offer 50 miles of AER for the alternate option thus reducing the stops at the fuel pump saving time and cost of fuel. It is worth noting that some manufacturers are currently considering this approach. In this model, the need for hydrogen infrastructure is greatly reduced. Of course, now it really is a PHEV. Currently, there are over 100,000 gas stations in the US. The time and subsidies required to match this model with hydrogen would be staggering. If the fuel cell was used as an extender, this number could be reduced easily to 1000 and save time. However, if by 2030, the battery reaches $100/kW, and electric infrastructure arrives, it is a good chance the need for extenders diminish.

Time has come today

Where Should I Charge My Volt?  At Home?  It's Definitely Cheaper

Plug and Done

Many recall the famous Broder episode showing a Tesla on the side of the road, and an occasional writer decrying that EVs aren’t ready because they pushed it to a scenario where they ran out of charge, all to make their story.  Note that it is always a specific incident or outlier that wants to equate their event as an overall design flaw. How many EV owners have you met that say “You know it is really taking more time out of my life to charge this EV”. In fact, if you ask, you will hear quite the opposite, with less trips to fuel and less time out of their lives.  And in most scenarios, a PHEV or EREV like the Chevy Volt ends the argument all together.

You may have witnessed or experienced regular charging times in excess of an hour. Know that it is a learning process even for the EV enthusiast. The truth is, some PHEV owners would be better off with a LEAF (BEV) and some LEAF owners would be better off with a Volt, but few would be better off with a Mirai or a Camry. With the properly selected plug in, less time will be spent waiting for a charge than anything requiring 100% fueling from pumping. 

So, when comparing the technologies, make sure it is done from the same point on the timeline. You want to compare CNG and FCVs to a BEV? Fair enough, just consider the advancements of BEVs at the same point on the timeline that you plan on having your infrastructure ready for competing technologies. And remember that as long as you have a common 110V outlet accessible at home, do not discount the joy of freedom from the pump. If you are worried about range and/or time and insist on a guarantee in every situation, then there is a PHEV ready for you today. Done. End of story. Once you let go of insisting on measuring using the old comfortable model, you will be on your way to really regaining your precious time. After all, standing at the pump is so yesterday.

*Futuristic cover photo by Kdawg

Categories: Charging, General


Leave a Reply

87 Comments on "Op-Ed: Fuel Time For Fuel Cells And Gas Is So Yesterday"

newest oldest most voted

I’ve essentially been saying the same thing for a while. In fact, I was with an acquaintance in my EV on the other side of town a few months ago and had to stop for a charge. He asked why I didn’t find that to be a hassle? My response was, “I do find it to be a hassle, but I only have to endure this hassle about 3 times per year thus far. Where, when I had a gas car I had the hassle of going to a gas station about 52 times per year.”

And it will be even less of a hassle when cheaper long-range EVs like the Model 3 and Bolt become available.

My anecdotal experiences is slightly different l, as I was quick charging 2 – 3 times per week.

But with DCQCs located at grocery stores, it still amounted to zero minutes of “wasted time.” The fact that you do not need to supervise the process frees you to turn it into productive time. It is hard to go into a grocery store and get out quicker than the DCQC fills the battery (often only needing an extra 10 – 20 miles).

Having owned a PHEV for almost 2 years now, I have to agree it’s a big convenience factor that I rarely have to visit a gas station anymore.

But for those longer trips, charging remains a pain, even if you are willing to drop $80K on a Model S. Besides the charging time itself, you will have to carefully plan every trip along the chargers and probably make detours along the way.

Then, there’s also a large part of the population living in apartments without access to a home charger. These people basically get the worst of both worlds if they want to use a pure EV (the inconvenience of having to get to a charger *and* waiting around while charging).

I think the ideal solution would be a serial hybrid configuration of a battery providing around 50-80 miles range for the daily commute, and a small fuel cell to keep the battery charged for longer trips.

80K ?

I’m not totally against fuel cells like most here but I don’t think a fuel cell would make that great a range extender.

First of all the hydrogen has 1/7th density of gasoline so you are going to need a more volumous tank.

second of all the range extender doesn’t get used that much so why spend the money on the FC if it isn’t going to affect the CO2 footprint that much.

I’ll stick with my gas range extender thanks.

Seriously. With a gasoline range extender, we can stretch out our oil for 100 years. And 100 years from now, I have to believe there will be a biofuel solution. Or an artificial fuel. Something that’s liquid at room temp / 1atm pressure though, none of this high-pressure gas.

In a hundred years why would we need any liquid fuel if you can cram in all the electrons you need almost instantly? Electrons can travel almost the speed of light to their destination unlike liquid fuels which need to be carried at a snail’s pace by other vehicles using liquid fuels.

Your argument assumes that some presently unthoughtof technology is created and does exactly that. Now in 100 years, that’s entirely possible, but it’s also possible that it doesn’t. My scenario was a very conservative one – basically nothing we don’t know how to do already. You also have to consider energy density. Yes, electrons travel very fast. But they have to be conducted somehow. And the energy has to be stored. It’s hard to beat the density of a liquid fuel. It could still be generated renewably – either biofuels or synthetics. I just think a liquid fuel makes more sense than a compressed gas like hydrogen. It’s much easier to store, transport, and manage.

I wish I was around in a hundred years to bet you we won’t be driving around on liquid fuel or hydrogen gas.

Maybe we will have “power-on-the-fly” cars. Batteries would only be for local driving, and all the expressways would provide inductive charging w/super-cooled power lines. Yeah, sounds like science fiction, but we are talking 100 years from now, so why not.

Electrons do not travel the speed of light or even anywhere close to it in the context of current within a wire. They have been measured at 10A to achieve the breakneck speed of 0.024cm/sec.


Wow, is this off-topic…

But altho electrons don’t travel all that fast in wires (about walking speed, as I recall), the actual electrical current -does- travel at the speed of light in a wire. That speed is a bit slower than the speed of light in a vacuum, but not much slower.

This has been thoroughly demonstrated. For example, you can rig up a switch to control a light a mile away, and the light comes on instantly when you throw the switch. It doesn’t have to wait for the comparatively slow flow of electrons.

My car charges at the speed of dark. I plug it when it’s dark outside, and in the morning, when the darkness ends, it’s fully charged.

Why wait?
The sooner we get onto a stable modular power source, the better we’ll be.

Electric cars, using electricity simplifies the demand structure. There are many ways to generate electricity, simply continue to support the cleanest, most efficient means of generation, and we can’t lose.

If we back only the system that is most profitable (as often happens) then some will win big, and then there will be the rest of us.

I think it’s important in the long term to get rid of fossile fuels to reduce the CO2 footprint. A hydrogen economy is one possible way of doing this (of course assuming that the hydrogen is produced using renewable energy or generated as a byproduct of industrial processes anyway). Of course there are still significant technical problems, but technology will evolve over the next few decades, and cost will come down.

Long term we should get rid of fossil fuels and replace it with batteries that are lighter and can charge faster. Then all you need are hundreds of thousands of power lines that we already mostly have rather than tens of thousands of miles of pipes and thousands of trucks and train cars to ship hydrogen to the thousands of points of desination.

Yes, if someone can come up with such a wonder battery that would be the best solution. But many experts seem to think it’s not possible, i.e. it may be that we will only see incremental improvements in cost, weight and charging speed in the forseeable future. I’d rather not do nothing and wait around for something that may never happen.

“Of course there are still significant technical problems, but technology will evolve over the next few decades, and cost will come down.””I’d rather not do nothing and wait around for something that may never happen.” What’s ironic about your comment is that EVs are this very solution to everyone being tired of waiting for the promise of hydrogen fuel cell cars to mature. We all were tired of hearing about the promise of hydrogen for the last 20 years and here we are now driving EVs with over one hundred thousand on the roads and improving every year. “Yes, if someone can come up with such a wonder battery that would be the best solution. But many experts seem to think it’s not possible, i.e. it may be that we will only see incremental improvements in cost, weight and charging speed in the forseeable future.” If those “incremental improvements” keep happening at the current rate then our problems will be solved in not much more than a decade. In the last 5-8 years battery cost have been more than cut in half and energy density almost doubled. For example the Tesla packs in 2010 cost about $600 per kWh. Now… Read more »

I don’t see what’s ironic about it. Proponents of both technologies try to extrapolate into the future, but the fact is that none of them is even close to competing with ICE vehicles (both light and heavy duty) in terms of convenience, versatility and cost. We don’t know for sure where technical and economic development will be going, therefore it makes sense to explore all options.

In that sense, I don’t understand where the hostility against fuel cell technology exhibited by some posters in this forum is coming from. Seems more like ideology than rational reasons. We should be cheering any technology that may help to avert the disastrous effects of climate change that are already beginning to show.

Oh, and BTW, we have been hearing about the promise of electric cars for far longer than 20 years …

Braben said:

“Yes, if someone can come up with such a wonder battery that would be the best solution. But many experts seem to think it’s not possible, i.e. it may be that we will only see incremental improvements in cost, weight and charging speed in the forseeable future.”

Well, let’s see. Over the past 25 or 30 years, rechargeable batteries have had quantum jumps improving energy density (i.e. size and weight) and ability to fast-charge: lead-acid –> NiCad –> NiMH –> lithium ion –> lithium ion polymer. These were not mere “incremental” improvements:

Anybody who for some reason claims that we’ve seen the last quantum jump advancement in battery tech… has no business calling himself an “expert”.

Even ignoring the huge potential of graphene-enhanced electrodes, which many companies and university teams are working feverishly to commercialize, they’re also pretty firmly ignoring the fact that many or most EV battery cell makers are already experimenting with lithium sulfur tech.

In an ideal world, it certainly would make more sense to use a fuel cell as a range extender than to use a gas generator for that purpose. Both fuel cell cars and pure EVs drive the wheels with an electric motor. Adding on a gas generator either means you need a rather complex and not terribly efficient parallel drivetrain, like the Volt, or else you have to accept limited ability to climb hills and accelerate hard when the car is depending on the gas generator, like the BMW i3.

Unfortunately, we don’t live in that ideal world. Fuel cells are too big and too expensive to compete on cost with a small gas generator. And if you want to be able to power the fuel cell with ordinary gasoline/diesel, then you also have to have an onboard reformer, which occupies far too much space to be practical, and makes the fuel cell system a lot -more- expensive than it already is.

But then, that’s not really the ideal world. The ideal world is one in which it only takes 5-10 minutes to fully recharge a BEV, and public ultra-fast-charge stations are almost as easy to find as gas stations are now.

That is not the case with the European i3 where the Rex can start at 75%SOC instead of only 6% like in the US, that makes all the difference.

By golly Mark. I think you just came up with a great way for Toyota to sell their FCV.

All they need to do is go back to full service stations where all the attendants are cute Japanese girls in short skirts 🙂

I average about 12k a year.
My last car (Civic Hybrid)with 40-45mpg and 9 gallons per fill took about 30 fills a year. Civic time = 30*4=120 minutes
My Volt with 38mpgCS and 8 gallon fill up went 3,000 CS miles in last year. This is about 10 fills. Volt gas time = 10*4 = 40 mins. Plugging in and out in my garage is only about 1 min extra per week so 52 minutes. Total Volt time = 92 mins. Volt wins and I don’t have to make any detours to plug-in nor stand around in inclement weather.

Volt wins every time.

If you live in New Jersey, it’s probably longer because you will have to wait for an attendant on occasion. Also, you have a credit card transaction (or worse cash) that is more time consuming, and risky, per marginal use than plugging in. And, as far as I know, nobody is offering free gas, while many EV drivers now do get free charging at some stations or at work.

Even in New Jersey, I pump my own gas, when I’m riding my bike. 🙂

I just revived my gas car (been out of commission for the past year due to transmission issues). As I was standing there filling it up at the gas station, I was left amazed at how long and uncomfortable the wait is, particularly when it’s freezing cold outside and there’s below-zero windchill blasting my face and hands.

Babysitting the pump sucks, even if it’s mild outside. But in the winter, it’s unbearable. In my LEAF, I unplug and go from my garage. I spend maybe 5 seconds unplugging and plugging in my LEAF. With the gas car, it’s 5-10 MINUTES of waiting, unsheltered from the wind and frigid temperatures. It’s insane. How can people think this is desirable over plugging in? I don’t get it.

Hydrogen is no different. Driving out of your way and babysitting a pump sucks. Give me electricity. I’ll fill up while I’m catching Z’s.

The time travel argument does not really solve anything when it comes to BEV proliferation. The primary obstacle is lack of access to charging for people who are not homeowners and park in a parking lot or curbside, and shifting the discussion 20 years forward doesn’t solve the cost problem in addressing that. Retailers and workplaces will never have charger availability for 100% or even 50% of parking, and commercial charging costs (e.g. ChargePoint at $0.49/kWh, *even for L2 charging*) are not competitive with gasoline. These are major obstacles to wholesale BEV replacement of ICE.

FCV is certainly not viable (present or future) anywhere where H2 refueling has not been deployed. That being said, in areas where H2 refueling is available (read: future), H2 is competitive in both range and refuel speed. The price is still worse than gas (yet better than commercial charging), but it’s not unreasonable to think that some of our gasoline subsidies could be rerouted to H2 subsidies to level out the price.

“Retailers and workplaces will never….”

There’s that *never* word again.

Sorry, “never” is my extreme shorthand way of writing “there is no plausible mechanism, existing or proposed, in which this event could come to pass.”

Workplaces, retailers, and, in particular, Condos and Apartments will provide additional charging capabilities based on demand. As an empty-nester considering condo dwelling in the not-to-near future, I’ll be asking about charging availability before I agree to making an appointment for a showing. Building owners will eventually catch on to why their occupancy rate is diminishing.

The amount of money it would take to outfit 100% of apartment/condo parking with EVSEs is nothing less than staggering (approximately $6k/parking spot, if done in pairs).

I have frequently mentioned this point and cited my sources for these costs. Without exception, every BEV proponent I have presented these costs to has responded with a) nothing or b) some imaginative cost-cutting solution (usually: DIY) that has not been actually implemented commercially anywhere.

EVSEs are no longer cutting-edge future technology. There are well-defined practices and standards for installing them. So unless someone invents long-range wireless power and/or the government starts providing free unlimited power to everyone, it will necessarily be expensive to address this problem.

I don’t really get the over-focus on apartment dwellers. The way I see it is that the industry should focus first on the easiest market: people with garages or a dedicated spot. That easily makes up 50% or more of the market. Even if you get somewhere close to that, businesses and government will naturally invest in charging infrastructure with enough market share and then apartment dwellers will naturally get the infrastructure they need. That’s how we get to wholesale BEV replacement of ICE.

I already presume that everyone with a garage is a given as a potential BEV customer. (A dedicated spot does not mean you have metered electricity run to that spot, so that’s a different issue.) But 50% of American drivers cannot charge at home. These people will not be BEV candidates without an overwhelming investment in EVSE infrastructure.

And unlike hydrogen (where the investors are obvious: the energy companies that will directly sell the H2), utilities will not be installing EVSEs. The idea that apartment complex owners will invest this kind of money for a perk is unsupported to say the least.

“Never”? Heck, if we -could- jump forward 20 years, you’d see just how wrong you are, Spider-Dan! This is even more myopic than someone in the “Get a horse!” era predicting that there never would be room for even 50% of city dwellers to own cars, because there simply would be no place to park them. Refitting our cities for more people driving cars than any other form of transportation did require a lot of rebuilding, putting in roads, parking lots, and streetside parking places. Putting in EV charging posts in parking lots and next to streetside parking will require -far- less disruption, far less investment, and can happen much faster. 100? Of course not. There will always be a few die-hards. But within a single generation, we’ll see probably 90% or more of stalls in public parking lots have EV charge points installed. And we’ll see lots of residential areas where people park on the street have streetside charging posts installed, too. In fact, in areas where it gets very cold in the winter, it’s already commonplace to have outdoor electric outlets in parking areas for engine block heaters. Why would you think it would be any more difficult… Read more »

You keep making this car parking analogy as if horses easily fold into one’s pocket, or as if the pre-Industrial Revolution, primarily agricultural 19th-century America was already plagued with urban sprawl.

Cool references to the Talking Heads and The Chambers Brothers.

Hmmm. Me thinks there is a ‘white’ elephant in the room of The Chambers BROTHERS…

About 15 000 km per year

With my old diesel about 8-9 fill ups per year. 5 minutes per time (of course doing it when driving from work).

= 40 minutes per year.

Now plugging it in and unplugging it. About 10 seconds twice a day at home.

= 122 minutes per year.

+ trying to plug it in sometimes when at friends and family. And sometimes at work. Which takes a lot more time and effort.

If someone would offer me do the plugging in and unplugging for me and I would gas their car up in exchange, would I do that trade of service? Yes, in a heartbeat.

Not really because it would save me time (which it would do) but more because it’s annoying to do something a number of hundred times instead of taking a bit more time but in a sequence.

Plugging it in is one of the hassles and downsides to EV’s compared to an ICE. But thankfully there are lots of other advantages.

are you sure your math is right?

15000km with 9 fill ups is 1666 km per tank. Assuming you drained the tank every time before filling

Most big tank diesels I’ve seen are closer to 600 mile or 965 km range.

That’d put you at 15+ fill ups assuming you drain to empty, and making 15-25 fill ups more likely.

You still may save a bit of time over an EV but not as striking

Just checked my old gas card bills. In a full year I had 9 fill ups. And generally I got somewhere between 1500 and 1600 km on a tank before filling it up.
It was supposed to be able to go 1800-1900 on a tank but I always fill it up with a good safety margin.
Anyway, if we would say 10 fill ups it wouldn’t make much difference in time and effort.

So you’re saying you’d rather have a cell phone that ran on gas, that you would have to find a fueling station for to fill it up every 2 weeks, rather than just plugging it at night when you go to bed.

No thanks.

If you are a hardcore commuter that drives far more than 99% of Americans, your car still sits completely unused for 20 hours of the day. This shares virtually nothing with the usage characteristics of a cellphone.

Horrible analogy.

Just do like I did Mikael, get a Plugless system and you wont plug anymore, park, done.

Mark Hovis, thank you -very- much for this article!

It irks me every time I see an EV supporter allowing the EV bashers to win the “refueling time” before it even starts, by talking about the recharge time at, for example, a Tesla Supercharger.

By far — something like 90 to 95% — most plug-in EV charging is done when the driver is -not- waiting on the car to charge. When he’s at home, at work, or maybe eating at a restaurant.

So we shouldn’t accept refueling time vs. charging time as a valid argument; it’s mostly a straw man argument, and irrelevant. As you point out, Mark, the issue is -wait- time… not the amount of time it takes to fill up your car using either fuel or electrical current.

In 2030 solar power will be ubiquitous, efficient, and nearly free, allowing most homes and business to make their own hydrogen to store energy. Fueling from those stores should be cheap and as convenient as EV charging.

It’s really sad to see how many posts there are from people who confuse “cheaper” with “free”.

Very cheap electricity would make BEVs even more attractive vs. “fool cell” cars than they are now. Even if you had a magic wand to generate hydrogen for free, that would do nothing about the difficulty of storing, compressing, or dispensing the hydrogen. Nor would it do anything about the tendency of hydrogen to leak past even the best seals.

Basic physics (thermodynamics) and basic economics (EROI) absolutely guarantee that fuel cell cars will -never- be competitive with BEVs, regardless of any future tech advance. Furthermore, as batteries continue to improve and the time it takes to recharge a BEV continues to drop (it already has dropped significantly in just a few years), the -only- advantage “fool cell” cars have right now over BEVS — a faster refueling time — will go away.

No, most large buildings will -never- have an installation for generating hydrogen to store power; that’s -far- less efficient than storing electrical power in batteries. Contrariwise, nearly all of them -already- have electrical power connections.

One must keep in mind that vehicles will at the very least have the capability to drive autonomously on interstates before 2025. So a long haul truck could have a pack like the one Proterra uses of less than 200kWh and autonomous trucks would move between 11 pm and 6 am and just quick charge every hundred miles or so while going 60 mph. The trucks would not have a driver so pulling over to charge often would not be that big a deal. Now that would mean at least 400 kW chargers but if they are driving at night it will be off peak.

Gene Frenkle said:

“… vehicles will at the very least have the capability to drive autonomously on interstates before 2025. So a long haul truck… would not have a driver so pulling over to charge often would not be that big a deal.”

Well, it wouldn’t “be a big deal” in the sense of having to pay a driver for all that waiting while charging, no. But the reason so much long-distance freight moves by Interstate trucking, rather than by freight train, is because “just in time” shipping requires fast delivery times. And if the truck makes several stops of hours each on the trip, then the customer might as well use railroad shipping, which is cheaper.

Would be interesting to see if the hyperloop test in Texas happens and works out. Talk about high-speed shipping.

My car does 60mpg+ so I don’t even fill it up every month.
I may spend less time each year ‘filling’ my electric car, but that is something that a) I wouldn’t think about and b) wouldn’t care about!

I’d go back to a gas car in a minute if our local station looked like that esso station.

Alias, after one visit there by my wife I’d be banned from going back…

Great article and great responses, thanks Mark!