News Brief by Kip Hansen – 16 April 2022
According to the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration there were “nearly 12.5 million commercial large trucks and buses were registered in 2016”. There are more now.
Governments around the world are considering or actually enacting laws, rules and regulations to phase out petroleum powered transportation (gasoline and diesel) and replace it with low- or no-emissions cars, trucks and buses.
Jack Ewing, writes in the New York Times about automotive business and the transition to electric vehicles. His latest article is titled:
“Truck Makers Face a Tech Dilemma: Batteries or Hydrogen?”
“Under pressure to cut emissions, truck manufacturers are choosing between batteries and hydrogen fuel cells. Wagering incorrectly could cost them billions of dollars.”
He says that the major makers of trucks, in the U.S. and Europe, have already decided that they will be required to give up the ever-dependable diesel power that they have so much experience with and shift to low emissions alternatives.
“Truck makers are divided into two camps. One faction, which includes Traton, Volkswagen’s truck unit, is betting on batteries because they are widely regarded as the most efficient option. The other camp, which includes Daimler Truck and Volvo, the two largest truck manufacturers, argues that fuel cells that convert hydrogen into electricity — emitting only water vapor — make more sense because they would allow long-haul trucks to be refueled quickly.”
Battery-powered long-haul trucks cost way more than diesel trucks – up to three times according to Ewing – but at least there is a short-haul version that one could buy. “Daimler Truck, for example, began producing an electric version of its heavy duty Actros truck, with a maximum range of 240 miles, late last year.”
Yes, producing, but they sold only 712 in 2021 worldwide, compared to 455,000 ICE trucks the same year. “Daimler has a new long-range Mercedes-Benz eActros commercial truck, which comes in at three times the price of the gas version.” [ source ]. These trucks have about a 400km or 240 mile range – it is not clear if this is an over-the-highway mileage or a more pragmatic average driving conditions mileage, such as making deliveries in London or NY City.
And hydrogen fuel cell (H2)versions? “In April (2021), Daimler began testing a prototype “GenH2” long-haul truck capable of going 600 miles between visits to the hydrogen pump. But lots of work is needed to bring down the cost of the equipment and there is not yet a network of hydrogen fueling stations or an adequate supply of hydrogen produced in a way that does not cancel out the environmental benefits.” [ source ]
Electric city buses, short-haul people-carrying vans like airport shuttles, or local delivery vans all make basic sense for batteries, as these types of vehicles return to a central depot each day where they can be recharged and maintained.
“The environmental side is hugely important but if it doesn’t make financial sense, nobody’s going to do it,” said Paul Gioupis, chief executive of Zeem, a company that is building one of the largest electric vehicle charging depots in the country about one and a half miles from Los Angeles International Airport. Zeem will recharge trucks and service and clean them for clients like hotels, tour operators and delivery companies.” [ source ]
Ewing points out that H2 trucks will be lighter and can be fueled (once there are fueling stations) in a similar manner to diesel trucks.
One of these two technologies may come out a big winner or the two technologies may share the market. Only time will tell.
The winner of the technology battle will rule the future truck market, worth billions. . . Winning billions or losing billions if one manufacturer picks the losing technology.
These mega-corporations have already poured in millions of research dollars and euros and set their best brains to try to outguess the future.
Which tech do you think will come out on top?
# # # # #
Author’s Comment:
I have an unsettled, not-yet-formed opinion. Battery power seems to have the edge in the present moment. Batteries are available and becoming better. Electricity for charging is already well distributed along major trucking routes and ubiquitous even in the less populated areas.
H2 is tricky to deal with – it sneaks out of containers and pipes and in the end, can be explosive. A leak can act as a FAE, a fuel air explosive. Anyone with a bit of chemistry background can make enough H2 at home to be dangerous (ask me, I had my three boys in home school). That said, it does burn cleanly producing only energy and H2O.
I don’t think I would want to drive a vehicle on the existing U.S. highways with a tank full of pure hydrogen strapped under the seat.
Yes, I know, gasoline is dangerous too….but not quite in the same way. Maybe it’s just me.
Thanks for reading.
# # # # #
They keep pushing their fantasies.
Xi says that you must resist your sole’s desire for freedom. One might suspect there is a connection between these fantasies and their desire for control.
My soles don’t desire anything, except walking.
Xi doesn’t spell very well.
You will change your attitude when it is time to re-sole.
During Katrina some looters cleaned out a shoe store. But as we all know, these were just poor undocumented shoppers, who went out of their way and successfully liberated so many soles!!
Sole, soul and soal. Two are flat, one is saved and one is dirty.
If your sole desires freedom, go barefoot.
Scissor I heard a fascinating clip on the No Agenda podcast from a Canada new station. Apparently Canada is trying to pass a law to limit organ transplant trips to China. It appears China has the lowest wait time in the world for organ transplants
Now where are they getting these organs, if true 🤔
Derg ==> from Climate Deniers, of course. That and Communism Deniers…..
Probably from a sole sauce.
China has an unexhaustable spring of organs available at once from the jailed people waiting for their death sentence to be executed. There are a yearly average of 2000 people who in average are sentenced to die in China. Their histocompatibility’s features are listed and once one is matching yours, the prisoner is killed on the surgical table a short moment before the organ
transplantation is scheduled in your body.
Jacques ==> In reality, or is that a anti-China rumor? Just wondering…..
Kip, it is absolutely real. It is not a rumor. There are so many Americans, and others, making so much money from the Chinese Communist dictatorship that even this is swept under the table. Help the Falun Gong by refusing to support communism and murder.
http://www.stoporganharvesting.org
Both hydrogen and batteries are hideous WRT energy density. And we won’t even get into how the hydrogen or electricity are generated. It’s hard to imagine an application more unsuited and less compelling for either than freight hauling.
Our elites have slipped into a “South Park” episode, where they can only choose between a “Giant D****e” and a “S**t Sandwich”.
Fortunately, our elites possess the vision to make this choice.
Here’s help imangine agricultural tractors. full load all the day
And that’s another one.
well, overtime would not be a problem for agricultural employees anymore. <sarc>
In France, we have:
Why promote either? Let the scientists, engineers determine what works and let the consumers pick what’s best.
If diesel kills the planet, how about covered wagons?
ICE works best …
or, in the case of diesel, CIE 😉
Jeffery,
my standard response to “let the scientists, engineers etc” is what do scientists know about engineering? Seemingly very little from what they come out with?
niceguy ==> Great, French politics mixed into technology choice. What could go wrong?
which one is Mannu Micron, the turd sandwich or the giant douche?
Boy Southpark missed on that episode. After all that transpired, Hillary was both.
Just to be clear. I don’t really watch reality shows like South Park. So, is a “D****e” something one might use for hygiene purposes?
If so, it actually has some utility. The sandwich, not so much. But I guess it’s just being used in a derogatory fashion, which seems right.
Nevermind.
Ref
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=E7pfsneLSSM
Thanks. LOL
The world would have 1.5 BILLION EVs for everyone, of which the batteries will last at most 8 years.
It is total hoot dreamt up by extremist liberal-arts, political-scientists bureaucrats, commuting in the highly subsidized, feel-good, $75,000 EVs
There would have to be total recycling of all scarce, expensive battery materials, as otherwise, there would not be enough materials to build another 1.5 billion EVs
The world would have about 100 million trucks and buses, in addition to the EVs.
A long haul truck typically travels about 50,000 miles per year, about 5 times the typical travel of an EV, i.e., those trucks and buses are equivalent to 500 million EVs.
The only LONG-TERM solution is hydrogen.
Gee, that was not too hard to figure out!
Ice is the long term solution
Willem ==> But, why hydrogen? Or do you mean just “not batteries”?
Battery Life? Doing 50,000 km’s a year would surely lessen their life in time.
Battery does 200 – 240 miles then needs 8+ (16) hours to recharge @ 240v before you can go another 200 – 240 miles. And that’s for a 4 door sedan that seats 5. Trucks haul significantly heavier loads and would require larger batteries taking far longer to recharge. 200 miles a day x 5 days a week x 50 weeks is 50,000 miles a year with 2 weeks off per year.
Thanks Brian, that’s a lot of miles (note I mistakenly used Kms). So that would only shorten the battery life further before a replacement is needed I would assume. I wonder if that cost is factored in?
Apologies Bryan, for miss spelling your name.
Your figure of 50,000 miles per year is a little underestimated. I used to drive Short Haul delivery and would easily drive more than 100,000 per year.
Bryan,
You are right.
Also, one long haul driver may log 100,000 miles/y, but the truck may have 2 drivers, just as planes have 2 or 3 crews.
This whole battery ado will turn out to be a hoax.
Not only will there be a lack of high-cost chips, but also high-cost battery materials, plus supply chain snafus. The cost of E
Long Haul (cross-country) truckers drive not more than a maximum of 11 hours per day, according to the Hours of Service regulations of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. All things equal, a trucker will drive about 55 to 60 miles per hour. At the end of the 11-hour driving shift, this amounts to 605 to 650 miles per day.
Which equates to about 150,000 miles per year.
What happens when the trucks are autonomous and there is no need for a potty stop? Won’t that affect the H2 vs Battery debate?
I drive hard. When driving for miles I did my best to average over 3,000 a week. Despite that the very best I have done in over 17 years of driving OTR was 146,000 in a year.
WHY are we trying to reduce CO2? The hypothesis that man-made CO2 is the main cause of global warming has been disproven.
And why was the MWP warmer that it is now? Certainly not because of CO2! Why do we persist in this idiotic expensive and ineffective pursuit of CO2 reduction?
Almost all green energy schemes are net energy negative – certainly ethanol, H2, and batteries.
We are fools for letting this continue.
DrEd ==> Some kind of world-wide mania I believe.
It truly does seem like we’re having a horrific pandemic – of idiocracy. Every time I turn around there’s something that’s just totally bat-sh*t-crazy. It’s hard to even do satire anymore, because anything written to be satire is probably something that’s already going on! It’s like we’re now living in a cross between 1984, Animal Farm, Atlas Shrugged, and Idiocracy. Sigh.
This ^
We are doing it for the children. Of course, birth rates are down in the developed world, so saving them is getting easier. All you have to do is lower your standard of living to be a hero.
I cant wait for the choice between battery and H2 for bushfire fighting trucks. should be a hoot.
Of course the other side of this wager is that we don’t see a serious drop in world-wide temperatures. In which case before these techs are ready for prime time the revelation sets in that there never was a crisis needing such major retooling. And all the companies who didn’t invest everything in an inferior technology are suddenly on top of the heap.
Kind of like the genesis of the Bubba Gump Shrimp Company.
I don’t see a serious rise of temperatures, Dr. Mann does.
We will never see a serious drop in worldwide temperatures because the data is adjusted to match the desired results.
Glaciation is due in the next 2000 ish years….
Hydrogen lacks the density to be good transport fuel, even as a cryogenic liquid.
EVs are heavy and damage roads even more that conventional transport vehicles. Imagine roads with more and worse potholes. Further, tires wear faster, actually creating more particulates.
So, not only are these EV transport vehicles more expensive to produce, require the installation of expensive infrastructure while delivery performance is worsened, they cost more to operate.
Yep. Road damage is approximately proportional to axle weight raised to the fourth power.
EV’s and Electric Trucks and Buses will have a very significant impact on road and highway maintenance costs.
There’s probably a correlation with truck tire failure causing serious car accidents also
Interesting; I had never heard that “fourth power” statement. Do you have a link to an explanation?
Here you go:
https://www.insidescience.org/news/how-much-damage-do-heavy-trucks-do-our-roads
It’s interesting to note that my 800 pound Gold Wing motorcycle, with 50 MPG and annual usage of 240 gallons of gas, results in about $150 in road taxes for ‘damage’. A 5,000 pound Tesla, which does approximately 1,500 times more road damage than my bike, pays zero.
Thanks a lot. I had no idea.
I pay £650 pa for my 2 seat Alfa Romeo. Fair? Nowhere near.
As soon as there are even a relatively small percentage of EVs on the road (enough to make a dent in gas taxes), they’ll almost certainly start charging taxes based on miles driven. They’ve been bandying that possibly around for some time now, even with almost no EVs to speak of (relative to number of combustion engine vehicles, that is).
Wealthy privilege. Only the wealthy can afford a Tesla without stealing [via subsidies] from the rest of us.
In the US trucks pay road taxes based on their maximum weight they are licensed for. For a battery powered truck, they’ll pay more or be forced to carry less. The truck will 3x as much, but the driver won’t be able to drive as far because of refueling time), so he’ll have less income to pay for it. The driver, the shipper and the customer all lose time and money.
Aren’t politicians clever?
“Aren’t politicians clever?”
Yes they are very clever and that is the problem. They are aware of the social collapse that these plans will create and are looking forward to it. The destruction of the capitalist West is their end goal. It is no accident that our entire social structure is collapsing all around us.
The left thinks that global wealth should be “equitably” distributed – therefore, they must drag us down to the same level as everyone else and beggar the more wealthy nations.
It never seems to occur to them that it’d be vastly better for all if they worked on helping pull the poor nations up, rather than tearing us down.
Toyota style hybrids are also very heavy: in France all normal family cars were way below “une tonne” (= 1000 kg), usually at 750 kg or 800 kg (for real usable cars, with enough room to go to the mall and buy for a week, etc.). Only SUV were way above the “tonne”.
But now we see many Toyota (or similar tech) hybrids at > 1200 kg (of similar size).
niceguy:
I don’t see a technical reason for hybrids to be grossly heavier than pure IC equivalents. From Edmunds, here are comparison figures for 2022 Toyotas in US market which come in both standard and hybrid models:
I can’t explain why the hybrid Corolla weighs less than the standard model. The standard Avalon engine is a V6; most of the others have standard 4-cylinder engines. I included the RAV4 Prime which is a plug-in hybrid, meaning it has a larger battery and charging circuitry to add weight.
As you can see the typical weight penalty for a hybrid is well under 100 kg with the RAV4 being an outlier.
These are for the US market which except in Hawaii does not impose any direct cost for vehicle weight. I expect Toyota models intended for sale in places where registration fees are based on weight would be trimmed down as much as possible.
In any case, a pure hybrid has a relatively small battery (1.6 KWh for the Camry/Avalon models) and a relatively small electric motor, so 50-80 kg seem a reasonable weight increase.
Most EV’s in the future will *not* be hybrids. As supply of gasoline goes down the price will kill even small engine hybrids as well as limit the number of gas stations. Straight EV’s will have much heavier batteries as the RAV4 hybrid does.
Trucks are limited by gross weight regulations to limit road damage. That means all the extra battery weight electric trucks haul around must be offset by reduced cargo weight. That makes the economics of electric trucks inferior to diesel. H2 might be better, but there are many drawbacks there as well not the least of which is the danger nature of handling pure hydrogen.
I should have mentioned the greater demand placed on braking, except for regenerative brakes, there will be greater amounts of brake dust produced also.
Wheel limit or overall?
Axle weight. 17,000 max per axle.
Usually weighed however as tandems on the trailer at max of 34,000. Tandems on the tractor max 34,000. Steer axle max 12,000. Totaling 80,000 lb max.
On some tractors the steer axle and tires are rated for more than 12,000 and so they be can be loaded up to their rated amount but the rig still cannot exceed the 80,000 GVW.
Maybe I’m wrong but, at least for the big trucks, 18 wheelers, I think there is a total weight limit for legal road use. A review of an experimental Telsa truck pointed out that the total weight was the same (same effect on road wear) but the possible freight load is greatly diminished.
You’re right, though rules are meant to be overridden by executive order.
80,000 is the standard GVW
If EV is a requirement, H2 for large fleets that follow mostly fixed routes….like Walmart…may be the best choice since H2 refill can be provided by the co. from larger tanks…there are niche businesses like landscaping that order larger tanks of H2 for their equipment…warehouse forklifts that use H2…etc. Also, in the future there may be autonomous driving of these regular routes and no stops at commercial fuel stations.
‘..there are niche businesses like landscaping that order larger tanks of H2 for their equipment…warehouse forklifts that use H2…etc.’
H2? Are you sure it’s not NH3 for the landscapers (farmers?) and LPG for the forklifts?
An industry website says there are already over 25,000 hydrogen fuel cell forklifts in the US. Major manufacturers include Toyota and Plug Power.
Jack ==> Give us a link?
But Methane works.
Another option would be to convert the existing diesel engines manufacturing facilities to produce hydrogen ice engines – JCB are working on this and have already built demonstration vehicles
Indeed.
The shipping industry is betting on ammonia. Water can be electrolyzed to produce hydrogen and nitrogen comes from air. Ammonia can be burned in diesel engines. There are a number of marine ammonia fuel projects. There is a Scandinavian project to build bunkering facilities. link
There is another possibility in which hydrogen is combined with toluine which produces methyl cyclohexane (MCH). At the far end of the trip the hydrogen is separated from the MCH and the resulting toluene is shipped back to the origin. This link is to a paper comparing ammonia and MCH.
Of course, neither of those alternatives is as good as fossil fuel. Also, ammonia is highly toxic and, in the presence of humidity, can form a gas that is heavier than air. I have visions of another Bhopal.
You are thinking of anhydrous ammonia which is a highly dangerous gas commonly used as a fertilizer or as a refrigerant.
It it has a high affinity for water and when exposed to it turns instantly to ammonia hydroxide which is a common, usually dilute, ingredient of household cleaners.
If you are ever exposed to the compressed gas (liquid) the only remedy to reduce injury is to dive into a tank of water. You will be too late in most cases.
I am not sure how it can be safely used as a fuel but it does have a narrow range of flammability. High NOx emissions is a characteristic.
That is not to say that it cannot be handled safely as millions of farmers and refrigeration techs can attest to. It is the appalling results of accidents that are worrying.
And another option would be to install a mini nuke plant under the hood.
Might as well make that fusion.
This company may be fraud https://plasmakinetics.com The tech may be real but no way can store enough H2 for EVs.
Anti ==> Hmmmm….looked at it, seems like they have a good PR firm that makes nice web sites. Can you take time to dig around and see if this is just another “flying car in every garage” story?
The CEO is interviewed on Youtube but offers no demonstration…let’s see the device on a table top and burn the H2 coming from it. Bill Gates bought into a new battery tech firm but apparently he is not into this tech.
Sounds a lot like the STEORN business model
Bryan ==> For readers:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steorn
Anti ==> The PR firm created the YouTube too, along with the website. Somehow people belive a video more than words — videos are more Truthy.
Guess we will have to wait and see.
It’s fraud. The language alone tells you that.
Michael ==> I’m afraid it is too.
Martin ==> a third option, seldom mentioned.
https://www.khl.com/news/JCB-develops-hydrogen-fueled-engine/8012602.article
Electric power for heavy equipment makes sense. Railway locomotives (either diesel-electric or straight electric) and draglines are prime examples. On the other hand, I’m not sure about fuel cells.
Electric and battery powered loaders seem to be a thing in underground mining. link
It seems to me that, if you really insist on having fuel cells, you could also have a battery option or the ability to plug into the grid and operate tethered.
The long term answer is fuel cell use, but not hydrogen. It will be some form of renewable hydrocarbons using nuclear power to generate directly.
Fossil fuels are totally renewable. New oil and gas is produced in the Earth every day. Rate of use? Dunno.
Actually, abiotic genesis is mostly NOT true. There is some abiotic natural gas, mostly as methane clathrates on the floor of the Framm Strait thanks to seafloor spreading and iron catalysis from fresh basalt. There is NO abiotic crude oil, period. The two attempts (Sweden, Ukraine) to prove otherwise both failed miserably. Gold’s book claiming otherwise is just scientific garbage. Easy to prove that most crude source rock has marine kerogen origin, the rest (mainly Haltenbanken off Norway) has a coal biogenesis origin. All my ‘assertions’ are easily researched, should you chose to do so. Just gave you the keywords to Google.
I suspect the choice will come down to the government support for Battery Vs Hydrogen. Technology, science and market forces will be the minor consideration, because if they were of major consideration then everybody would still stick with diesel.
My bet is Battery, because the complexity of Hydrogen generation, delivery, storage and use in a moror vehicle will be too much for a Government organisation to comprehend. The resultant administrative rules for subsidy support will make no business or common sense.
Either “solution” will raise costs for consumers, so if that’s the goal, then they are both effective.
“My bet is Battery, because the complexity of Hydrogen generation,…”
Actually, that is not a bad bet.
Scenario #1:
1) The Govts. mandate batteries, then mandate Li ion batteries, because “obvious choice”. Note here that Govts. are incapable of just mandating the technologies. They cannot just select an implementation, they must mandate said implementation, as well.
2) With Li mandated, worldwide shortages of Li and all other needed materials break out.
Prices rise to levels which would drown a giraffe. The market collapses in utter confusion and lost investments.
3) Govt. regulators look on in utterly befuddled confusion. Unable to comprehend, they declare “It could not have been anything We did.” They refuse to change direction or even back off their mandates.
4) With battery availability at a functional zero, all industries now dependent on these mandated products grind to a halt. Chaos and confusion spreads throughout the larger economy. Everything is connected to everything else, after all.
5) Atlas Shrugs.
Who is John Galt?
6) Elon Musk starts producing gasoline fueled cars. Can’t keep up with the rush of orders.
The more impractical and destructive the choice, the more likely government will back it. Especilly if it is more dangerous, requiring more licenses, fees, inspections, and of course occasional “emergencies”.
Coal gas was one of the main sources of heat, light and cooking in the Northeast US from the mid 1850’s through the mid 1950’s. It was about half H2 and half CO. The last town gas plant in NY was closed in 1955.
dwg ==> Yes, we very often forget that towns had gasworks that produced gas to lighting and cooking.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_gas
“Which tech do you think will come out on top? ”
Neither one . ” If wishes were cars , beggars would drive …”
Wake me up when China, India, Africa and the rest of the world begin investing in electric and/or H2 infrastructure. Western Leftist ideological elites will not drive worldwide adoption of unreliables. They are flogging a horse that hasn’t even been born yet; Western OPM will run out quickly.
The garbage elite keeps pushing its bogus emergency, but one thing is certain. Whatever rotten means are left to the masses, the elitists will have all the heat, light, power, food, limos, mansions, and luxuries they might desire. Sacrifices are for the serfs.
You plebs will own nothing, and be happy…
Life’s a shit sandwich; the more bread you got, the less shit you have to eat.
Klaus Bloschwab. Probably…
A hybrid electric would seem to be the ideal compromise. A gasoline powered generator to recharge the batteries after the truck is unplugged (& drained) in the morning. Even charging the truck while stopped for delivery. This little engine could be super tuned for low emissions due to it’s constant RPM. It could even be shut off when in an urban area that might ban ICE’s. Wouldn’t the resulting emissions meet the future government requirements?
Arthur ==> Isn’t this what hybrid Toyotas already do?
We tried it with the infamous Boris Bus.
Apparently, the batteries couldn’t take the cycling and soon degraded.
The poor little Cummins four-pot was thus working overtime and drank far more than a regular six-pot & auto would have done. They were also very expensive.
It’s great when you’re wasting Other Peoples’ Money, isn’t it?
Bit like all of those expensive BYD electric-buses that spontaneously combust in depots overnight.
Given that truck & bus operators baulk at the additional cost of a relatively ‘clean’ CNG ICE vehicle, the Cunning Plan seems to be to drive operators to the wall…
My Humble Opinion:
Batteries can go nowhere. There is just not enough Li or other needed elements on the planet for large-scale roll out.
Hydrogen Plan A and Plan B:
Plan A) An ICE engine. More likely a jet turbine. Perhaps one with power curve characteristics similar to a helicopter engine. Important is the ability to throttle up and down quickly and smoothly.
Plan B): Fuel cells. Fuel cells avoid the punishing energy loss you get with all thermodynamic heat engines.
The Big But: But the fuel cell reaction happens across a semi-permeable membrane. The membrane is fragile, expensive and short lived. The membrane has been quite resistant to attempts to improve it. True NASA has used fuel cells for decades. NASA has vast access to taxpayer money, and spends like it. The rest of us have to pay for our toys.
Both your plans have merit. There has been significant progress on ceramic membranes for fuel cells. Still not ready for prime time though.
Having consulted to for years and been the lend/lease chief marketing officer of Navistar, I have an informed opinion based on personally knowing the heads of most of the major US trucking companies. NEITHER. They are hard nosed cost conscious, and won’t do anything risky or costly—especially not with something as critical as truck diesel engines. And I doubt governments will be able to force them any time soon because trucking (supply chains) is simply too important.
Rud => I thought I remembered you have industry experience.
I agree with NEITHER for long-haul, over-the-road trucking. My reasoning is that neither is really suitable or achievable in the present.
For local deliveries, city buses, airport shuttles, delivery vans I think that city governments will force battery-power in the short-run.
Yes Kip, battery powered vehicles of all sorts are fine for their defined applications.
It’s trying to make them the solution for all transportation power that crosses the line into stupidity.
(But we’re seeing this same stupidity on so many fronts these days 😒 )
As noted above, Kip, limited OPM (taxpayer and consumer demands: Politics) and the rest of the world will dictate economic and technological energy development, not Western Leftist ideologues.
Dave ==> Yeah, like California?
The Let’s Go Brandon administration is giving California a run for their money all the way around, at this point.
You can move away from California. Oh wait, they already are.
For local stuff like city busses and airport shuttles, the best answer IMO is a full hybrid. Application is almost all start, go about 30 seconds, stop. Downsize the engine significantly for constant speed, use the electric machine for start acceleration, use the electric machine for stop regen braking. Extends brake service life by about 4x and cuts fuel consumption over 1/3. Real numbers, as all the Broward County Transit system newer busses are full hybrids (from Europe) and those numbers are what Broward is getting. More than pays back the extra hybrid premium over the 10-12 year bus service life.
Rud ==> You are saying battery electric back by ICE generator?
No. Full hybrid in the Prius configuration. NOT Chevy Volt. Or just like my full hybrid Ford Escape my 2007 (based on Prius architecture). You can Google the configuration.
Both the ICE and the electric machine can power the transmission, separately or together. The electric machine also provides regen braking to feed the battery. We have a neat dash display option to show the system at work in real time (same display as radio and CD and drive directions).
One oddity that full hybrid owners get to know. The ICE does NOT start off the SLA PbA. That is only there for lights, windshield wipers, door locks, and such. So NO AAA jump start is possible. It starts off a >350V starter ‘compartment’ of the traction battery. Now Ford knew from the gitgo that if the car sat long enough, leakage current would drop the starter compartment of the traction battery below 350V. The car then will not start because the bigger A because lower V current pulse would overheat the 78HP electric machine. So they provide a hidden ‘jumpstart’ button that pumps up the starter compartment from the rest of the traction battery. After 14 years, we need to hit the ‘jumpstart’ button if the car sits more than about 7 days unused in summer here. Takes about a second to be good to go.
Rud ==> Thanks for the details. Most of my friends that have Prius just keep them gassed up at the pump….never plug them in.
Plug in Prius is a different thing than full hybrid. Bigger battery, LiIon rather than NiMH. Terrible battery life tradeoff. Maybe I will write a guest post for CtM consideration on all this, since am actually an SME.
Rud ==> Great, good idea.
Not true for my full hybrid, an Infiniti M35H. It starts off the Lead-Acid battery. I had the Lead-Acid die during the pandemic- got jump started by AAA as my small jump-start battery couldn’t do the job at freezing temperatures. I was quite annoyed that the hybrid battery had a full charge, it starts the engine during stop-start operations, but there was no way to use it to start the engine from a cold start.
Same for the Toyota Prius I used to own. The Escape Hybrid is the only one I know of with a jumpstart button.
Exactly. See also Koniggsegg Regera. Good for other market segments, as well as short haul freight/passenger. Full hybrid is the way to bet.
It might be possible to go to turbine power engine/generator, and/or to natural gas fuel cell, but don’t think the tech is any closer than GWatt fusion.
EV city buses have this nasty habit of catching on fire – fires that are nearly impossible to put out, and which spew incredibly toxic smoke. Several large towns have tried them already, only to wind up scrapping the idea. The problem apparently is that the larger the battery, the greater the risk of fires. Which sure makes them unsuitable for local delivery trucks, city buses, etc.
Unfortunately that won’t stop any number of other cities from trying the same wasteful and harmful insanity.
Diesel doesn’t explode either. A hydrogen fire may be hotter but at least it can be extinguished whereas a lithium battery fire is more difficult. Can you imagine the furore if you dialled 911/999/112 and were told that there were no fire appliances or ambulances available as these electric vehicles hadn’t been fully charged.
Imagine what happens when there’s a large power outage for a few days also (major ice storm or other natural disaster, etc.). Then you’ve no way for people to get somewhere warm, no fire or ambulances for emergencies…
Hauling a big heavy battery around intercity is insane, a mindless waste of energy. The cargo capacity of a battery truck would have to be reduced in proportion. And imagine the line at a truck stop waiting for 8 hours to get recharged.
No way a trucking company could be profitable with these beasts.
Basic physics in terms of the role of mass on momentum and kinetic energy are ignored.
Basic physics does not save the planet. Idiots do.
That could be sloganized.
Just think about hauling said battery up either side of the Rockies.
And then letting it roll down the other side.
I had a VW that proported to measure & display minute to minute mileage. Coming back from frequent high altitude hiking trips, it read its maximum 99/mpg much of the way.
It’s a feature not a bug!
You can’t debate the climate alarmists; they can only be ridiculed.
There will simply be NO so-called “green” hydrogen in the foreseeable future. There won’t even be enough to make all the needed electricity, much less enough to electrolyze hydrogen.
The same holds true with long-haul electric trucks. Driverless trucks are about to revolutionize freight delivery in the US. That only works efficiently only if the vehicles don’t spend half their time charging their batteries or waiting in line to do it. There would hardly be enough charging stations or power, even with coal powered electricity, much less solar cells and windmills.
Simply laugh at the crazies that propose it. It’s more feasible to make nuclear powered freight delivery than it is to make ‘green electric’ delivery.
Could Solid Oxide Fuel Cells running on ethanol rather than diesel be the answer? They would be safer than using hydrogen directly and converting existing fuel stations to dispense ethanol rather than diesel should be relatively easy. Also, there would be no need for huge investment in electricity generation and transmission networks.
The problem with SOFC is the high operating temperature (about 700C), which causes cracking failure with repeated on/off cycling. EU spent over $1billion studying them for grid use in the 1990’s before giving up.
From the author’s comment, about H2, “That said, it does burn cleanly producing only energy and H2O.”
There is nothing “dirty” about CO2, so this ought not be a binary choice between batteries and H2.
Let’s hope that the truck manufacturers help lead the way to a reality check moment, for politicians to snap out of the manufactured illusion that vehicle emissions of CO2 are harmful in respect to warming.
Emission of water vapor is correctly understood to be harmless in respect to warming. This is because the atmosphere performs far more powerfully as the working fluid of its own heat engine operation, than as a static radiative absorber and emitter between the surface and space. Emission of CO2 is harmless in respect to warming for the same reason. Heat cannot be accumulated at the surface to dangerous effect by what non-condensing GHGs do.
It may take a few more years or decades for this to be more fully rediscovered. Let’s hope for sooner rather than later.
“That said, it does burn cleanly producing only energy and H2O.”
. . . and H2O vapor is a far-stronger greenhouse gas than is CO2.
Looks like the IPCC may soon have to refocus it efforts (and alarmism) in order to stay alive.
/sarc off
David ==> If fossil fuels would burn and produce ONLY CO2 and water there would not be such a fuss. The fuss over gasoline and diesel engines started long before the AGW movement. Fossil fuel ICEs unfortunately produce other and truly noxious gases in the exhaust, gases that we would all be happy to see go away.
I would agree that there are other considerations such as you mention, but the current particulate and NOx controls have driven harmful pollution from heavy diesel trucks to low levels. We are very likely, in my view, to be at the point of diminishing returns. It is the unsound claim of harmful warming from the resulting CO2 emissions that remains the core issue.
For fuel cells, why not methanol (from natural gas) or CNG instead of H2 as the energy source?
David ==> This whole site, more or less, is about the silly demand to reduce CO2. So leave it out of this particular discussion.
What we have here are the prospects of alternate fuels for long-haul trucking.
25 years ago. Nowt much with modern engines. DKUATBT!
Jeremy Clarkson of TV’s “Top Gear” claims that the Porsche 911 exhausts air cleaner than Los Angeles’s air. This has been questioned, but it’s true that cars meeting the LEV III standard exhaust very clean air. There’s not much in the way of truly noxious gases in the exhaust anymore.
Need a quantitative definition of “cleaner”.
That is all.
meab ==> I suspect that is a relative statement. Don’t sit in the garage with the door closed and the car running for very long….
Dibbell has it exactly right. CO2 is NOT a pollutant. It has NO measurable effect on any measurable aspect of climate. There has been no breakthrough on battery technology that can make EV trucking make any sense whatsoever. Environmental “scientists” are not scientists at all; they are ideologues, forever pushing the Malthusian-Luddite theory.
Why don’t the oil companies wake up?
Ronald Havelock, Ph.D.
Whatever…makes the money. Large corporations are now all in on the Great Carbon Scare….some time in the future…maybe CO2 over 500ppm….temps will be little moved…maybe even down a tenth or two….the pols will admit it was all a big big mistake….but it wuz the scientists who told them to do it…..blame that scientist over there behind that tree – don’t blame me.
Anti ==> The truck manufacturers are maybe playing “go along to get along” at this stage. Freightliner doesn’t want to be the only truck manufacturer to be closed down by Big Government for failure to have a non-diesel alternative.
They have to at least look like they are planning ahead to a no-diesel future.
BINGO!
Mercedes just announced Net Zero by 2035….new fuel economy standards for cars that will help keep killing the ICE engine slowly….trucks are fortunate no econ standards….at this time.
When will the madness around EV’s end? There are very smart people reading this exceptional website and I would like one of those smart individuals to calculate the weight of today’s present battery capacity to the energy storage of 100 gallons of diesel. What kind of fire would be produced by a large truck battery system if it were to ignite? Imagine the energy requirements at a truck stop with just 50 trucks being recharged in one location. I could keep going but my coffee has run out.
John ==> Truckers are required by law in the USA to take eight hour breaks — they would have o plan their breaks around Truck Stops of America charging stations. Not totally impossible, just darned unlikely.
Ya, how would we like to have a huge lithium battery powering gasoline tanker trucks?
I saw a great video of how one municipal department deals with Tesla’s. They set up a portable water tank and then drop the entire car in with a crane.
Speaking of battery EV trucks, whatever happened to the Tesla Semi? . . . you know, the tractor-trailer combination that in 2017 Tesla announced would start production by 2019 and would begin deliveries to customers in 2019.
A quick Web search gives the following update: “During a shareholder meeting in October 2021, Musk revealed that the production is facing another delay and would ‘hopefully’ start in 2023.” (ref: https://topelectricsuv.com/news/tesla/tesla-semi-all-we-know-feb-2022/ )
However, Musk has a long history of failing to deliver on his “hopes” (likewise, where is the Tesla CyberTruck, the Tesla motorcycle, and the Tesla/Boring company underground “freeway” system?), and right now Musk seems more interested in a hostile takeover of Twitter than in delivering EV trucks of any size.
Gordon ==> Honestly, Elon doesn’t work on the production line you know , he hires people to do that.
I don’t think the line workers are the ones who make the decisions on which products get built where, nor do they do the engineering work. That would be Musk and his high level hires.
Trying ==> The idea that was that Elon was too busy with something else…..my point is that he has whole companies that do things and they don’t necessarily stop producing just because Elon personally has anew interest in something else at the moment.
In most companies, the CEO is considered as the person most responsible for the performance of company, including meeting advertised product deliveries on time. The CEO hires or fires the people, that in turn hire or fire the people, that in turn hire or fire the people . . . all the way down to the lowest level workers.
I take your comment to mean that you believe that Elon Musk gets a pass on this.
I don’t.
Gordon ==> It isn’t his job to supply you or anyone else with EV trucks….oh, did you have an order in for one? If so, write him a Tweet and demand your truck.
Sorry, Kip,
I see now that my OP must have “gored your bull” (pardon the pun).
BTW, “With the addition of this order by Karat Packaging, the total tally of publicly-known Tesla Semi orders goes to 42 and the total trucks ordered are 798 units (source & detailed stats: Tesla Semi order tracking page by X Auto).”
followed by this:
“According to our friends at Teslarati, PepsiCo is going to receive the first batch of 15 Tesla Semis as soon as this month (Jan 2022).”
(source of both quotes: https://www.teslaoracle.com/2022/01/10/a-large-us-logistics-firm-places-an-order-for-10-tesla-semi-trucks/ )
So, I do believe it is, indeed, Elon Musk’s job, as CEO of Tesla, to fulfill his company’s backlog of orders. Demand Tweets are not needed . . . there are laws in place to control such things, such as breach of contract and compensatory damages for false advertising.
Gordon ==> Well, then. His company will have to meet the demands of the law.
I look at this situation much as I look at the ever-present attempt in American national politics to blame all bad things on the sitting president.
It’s easier to deliver Tweets.
Anyway, MSNBC says, “Elon is trying to control how people think. That is our job.”
The Tesla Semi has several HUGE problems. It comes in two variants (if it will ever be manufactured), one with a 500 mile range, ostensibly for long-distance trucking, and one with a 300 mile range.
meab,
Thank you. Excellent post!
BTW, not mentioned: what percentage of those $150,000-180,000 Semi tractors will have to be replaced when the batteries spontaneously ignite?
(ref: https://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-electric-semi-truck-delayed-again-2022-now-2021-7 )
If reality ever comes into play then compressed natural gas would be the choice. The problem with diesel is the particulate emissions and CNG does not have that problem. It is cheaper than battery or fuel cell and deployment is taking place now. Of course we have to pretend that all the imaginary costs of climate change justify the more expensive options
CNG works locally. In Fort Lauderdale, about half the garbage trucks are CNG ‘diesel’. But that works because the trucks fill up with garbage, run to the dump, then run to the depot to refuel CNG before the next run.
Won’t work for long haul or regional haul. Not enough volumetric energy density.
Rud ==> Yes, in the same way that battery-power makes sense for these same types applications for the same reason. normally short hauls, stop n go, return to depot every night/day for layover and charging.
The Dutch company DAF have been providing electric trucks for the sort of uses you mention for a number of years. They don’t seem to have any great interest in developing long haul versions.
Roger ==> Compressed Natural Gas is already used for forklifts inside warehouses (propane bottles) and in the Dominican Republic, one can buy a cheap kit for your car engine converting it to propane. Occasionally, a 20 lb propane bottle in the trunk of a taxi would bounce around that snap off the gas hose, clouds of propane pouring out and folks running to get as far away as possible in case the cloud ignites.
Diseasel with adblue is incredibly clean.
If CO2 emissions is a problem why not make synthetic fuels from hydrogen and CO2 and continue using (emission free) hydrocarbos for transportation. No need to invent a new technology. In real life the intention isn’t to develop new technology but to destroy society.
Net energy requirement goes up dramatically.
An 18 wheeler loaded is 80 k pounds by law. Of which 35 k is vehicle plus trailer and cargo is 45 k pounds.
A battery version needs a battery 1/3 the gross vehicle weight, which works out to net 25k pounds with allowance for ev power train simplification.
Which means your cargo capacity is reduced from 45 k to 20k pounds by switching from diesel to lp battery.
Well we all know that green energy is cheaper, so buying 2 1/4 times as many vehicles should be no problem. (Do I need /sarc?)
ferd ==> Big tradeoff.
“Under pressure to cut emissions, truck manufacturers are choosing between batteries and hydrogen fuel cells. Wagering incorrectly could cost them billions of dollars.”
____________________________________________________________
Them? It’s going to cost everyone except the ruling class.
It seems people, even the super intelligent, need to be constantly reminded that the consumer pays all the costs of production plus the taxes, from the field or mine to his doorstep. Not only is there no free lunch, there is no free anything — unless you’re on the government dole and the taxpaying suckers are footing the fill.
Ballard Power has been on the hydrogen fuel cell bandwagon for more than 40 years. The wagon is still a wagon and going nowhere fast.
They took it public at the right time. It’s amazing that companies like this only lose money and yet continue to survive for decades subsidized through government grants, in addition to shareholders left holding the bag.
The 2015 Cascadia Freight Liner I drive has averaged 7.4 mpg over the 598,240 miles I have driven it since I got into it when it was brand new. I just checked it when I got back from my last run.
I know this off the top of my head because the computer gives that readout for the MPG over the life of the truck and whenever I fuel, as I did Thursday when I got in from my last run, I have to enter the mileage.
My last run I ran from Anderson, IN to out by the Kansas City Airport to a Toyota Replacement parts DC with 28,200 lb. of service parts loaded in steel racks.
At that facility I dropped the loaded trailer I brought. Pulled an empty trailer from the dock and dropped it. Re-hooked to the trailer I had brought and backed it into the door. I dropped it there and re-hooked to the empty trailer.
I then took the empty trailer up to St. Joseph, MO. There I was loaded with 44,240 lb, of new dry batteries for automobiles. I drove the short distance to a nearby Loves truck stop and took my 10 hour break.
My tractor had a slow cold leak of coolant. IOW when the system is hot there is no leakage. For that reason I left the tractor idle during my break.
I then drove back to the terminal at Anderson, IN and dropped the trailer, fueled, did my post trip inspection, and parked the truck. I then went in to the garage and told them about the cold leak.
That round trip was about 1,100 miles and I still had over 1/8th fuel remaining. I put 168 gallons in and total tank capacity is 222 gal.
I will not be holding my breath until batteries or any other alternative “green” fuel can even come close to matching that. And to be quite frank I’m quite happy that my driving career will end before they even try.
rah ==> Thanks for the “in the driver’s seat” view of the trucking situation!
Well to give all an idea of the longevity of that truck. It has covered the equivalent distance of over 24 times around the earth.
598,240/24,901=24.024738
Or to put it another way that’s a bit over two Apollo 11 missions. I personally am working on my 7th Apollo 11 mission as a driver.
No engine rebuild and it probably won’t need one until after it has 1 million miles on it.
This is not exceptional.
rah ==> Hey, thanks for that, I had no idea that truck engines would go so long. So suppose you are a stickler for regular maintenance….
That is what it takes. BTW the 2004 Volvo that had a Detroit Engin in it that I first drove for the company I am with now with was only 1,400 miles short of having 1 million miles on it when they took it away from me to sell it.
I believe Volvo holds the record for truck miles from a single engine at 17 million.
The highest from a car was (this was 20 years ago) 1.7 million miles on a single engine, single owner. That was the same model Volvo that The Saint used to drive.
Zig Zag ==> I liked The Saint.
I got over 200,000 from my Nissan 200SX (a sportified Sentra) before the first repair — a replacement window wiper motor. One of my sons wrecked the car before any engine repairs were needed, around 237,000 miles.
The company I drive for is the one that is a stickler. It’s their truck. I do what I can to let them know of any problems and do the pre-trip and post trip inspections.
That cold leak for example. Tnhe truck had been sitting for 5 days. I found I had the leak when I backed out of my parking spot and saw the puddle of coolant on the ground. I immediately shut it down and opened the bonnet. I put 1/2 gallon of coolant in to bring it up to the proper level and then started her up.
Using my flashlight I checked for leaks. There were none. Nor was there the smell of hot coolant which one can smell even when driving. That is when I determined it was a cold leak and went ahead and took the truck to make the run to KC and back.
No problems on the run and no coolant loss.
That’s experience on my part.
I have been at this for 17 years and I still learn new stuff all the time about trucking and logistics. It is a much bigger world than many understand I believe. Anyone that says they know it all is lying.
rah,
Excellent perspective, as usual. As you are a trucking pro, I have an off-topic question for you: What is it with a lot of rigs that have the ‘spikey’ wheel lug nuts on the front wheels? I’m sure it’s innocuous, but it’s like being passed by Messala on I-95.
Just decoration. Truck bling we call it. Now on truck and trailer wheels you may see some plastic arrow looking things, usually yellow, sticking out from under each lug nut. Those are there to indicate if a nut is coming loose.
rah – I often wondered about those yellow tags. Does that mean that wheel-nut loosening is a frequent occurence? When I was an apprentice many decades ago, we ensured the wheelnuts were tight by swinging on a long bar. I presumed that stretched the wheelstuds, making them less likely to come loose. Maybe some use a torque wrench nowadays?
Not frequent at all in my experience. I have seen them use a torque wrench to check them but usually it’s just impact wrench them on and go.
The company that I drive for does not use those things. But one reason why I have stayed with the company I work for so long is because of the equipment and their maintenance program.
BTW those are just plastic caps that fit over the nuts.
Phew! Thanks!
Thanks, very informative. The real world!
Your last line is the key. If they seriously try to implement alternative fuels, given the present technology what will happen is huge changes in lifestyle and ways of working. You’re hinting at it in your last line. What will happen is that deliveries and freight and trucking (as a key example) will have to change to accomodate battery power. And it will be nothing like the way it works at the moment, and the changes will have all kinds of unforeseen consequences all across society.
And trucking is only one of these cases. People are going to have to work around and change how they live to accommodate the shift. Its going to take a decade or more for the effects to ripple through society, and when we look around ten years or so from now, America (or any other country that seriously tries this stuff) will be unrecognizable.
In the real world it is going to take considerably more trucks to move the same amount of freight unless they can come up with a power system as efficient as a diesel. That means more cost in every way shape and form. More equipment, more trucks on the road, more drivers taking longer to run their routes, more maintenance, more of just about everything.
The manual for my 2015 claims that the pollution control system brings the emission levels down to the point where the exhaust has an air quality better than the ambient in large urban areas.
I get paid a salary of $1,700.00 per week. That’s after two raises of $100.00 ea, already this year! Walmart is now starting inexperienced drivers at $95,000 and they will be above the six figure mark after their first year OTR.
rah ==> A good time to have a commercial drivers license.
Yep. Too bad the raises get eaten up by Bidenflation. I grilled two nice Ribeyes for dinner last night. Bought from under the glass at Meijers. $48.00! I really don’t know how the retired on a fixed income are going to make it if this keeps up.
I qualified for full SS in October last year. Have not taken it yet. I intend to keep driving in my current position at least through the end of this year and possibly longer. Won’t file for SS until I feel I can’t continue in this position anymore.
When this on call job gets to be too much for me then I’ll probably get the shortest dedicated route that qualifies me as a full time employee just to keep the benefits because we really do have pretty descent insurance.
I am including the link to DeSmog BOG once again cheering the idiots who are actually undermining the production of the electricity needed to charge the kazillions of new electric vehicles. Here is the excerpt from Brendan DeMelle’s latest CAGW Alarmist email blast.
They sure use a lot plastics in their protests!
Their “chain” was pathetic. It’s a good thing the police there aren’t sadistic. Application of a little pepper spray would be a sight to behold.
TEWS ==> Gads, activism today is writ small small small.
In the late 60s, a protest of less than a few thousand was not even reportable for the tiny college radio station for which I did reporting.
Use a battery powered angle grinder to cut the tube?
…and lead the person who will be cutting it over to the protester wearing dark glasses and tapping with a white cane and shaking with the DTs.
“fuel cells that convert hydrogen into electricity — emitting only water vapor”
Since water vapor IS the main greenhouse gas, adding more kind of defeats the purpose of combating “global warming”.
Tom ==> Yeah, but atmospheric H2O is self regulating, too much and it rains….
With petrol of any kind one only needs to bring the fuel, as the air is free, but with a battery ALL the energy must be brought and stored in the battery, no free oxygen is used, there is the main problem.
https://energypost.eu/hydrogen-fuel-cell-cars-competitive-hydrogen-fuel-cell-expert/
Michael ==> Thanks for the link.
H2 is a non-starter and I shudder to think how much of a class 1 HGV (“18 wheeler”) max road weight 44 Metric tons would have to be used as battery to give the necessary torque and range…
Hydrogen is better used to hydrocrack heavy oils to make more diesel or desulpherize diesel. Batteries are not going to do squat for a loaded truck weighting 60,000 lbs.
Maybe the final delivery vehicles could be battery though.
Neither is practical for trucking. Both are equally unsuitable (albeit for different reasons). Who knows when H2 will ever be practical, much less economically feasible? Possibly never.
“One of these two technologies may come out a big winner or the two technologies may share the market.”
Neither. They both suck. For long haul OTR, they are wildly expensive and energy inefficient.
For long haul, the only non diesel technology that makes any sense is electrified railroads.
For urban mass transit, electric buses powered by overhead trolleys. This is technology that was widely used in the 1930s and 40s. They are still being used in San Francisco.
I do not know which will win the false contest between fuel cells and batteries, but I do know who the losers are. They are we consumers and taxpayers who will be impoverished to play act the fantasies of our overlords.
Walter ==> The requirement to replace current long0-haul trucks is that they must be able to drive to the huge warehouses and transfer points. Trains can’t just go anywhere. The sea-container rail to truck system is already in use. Boats haul the containers to port, containers are stacked on trains, delivered to train yards around the country, containers put in truck beds and delivered to warehouses or direct to grocery store.
IMHO, Walter is right about electric railroads for long haul shipping. This would leave trucks used for drayage between the rail/truck intermodal terminals and the initial shipper or final receiver.
The killer for freight electrification in the US has been the high capital cost of the traction power supply system, which would almost certainly be overhead wires (Catenary). For urban areas, at least half the cost of installing overhead wires is in providing adequate overhead clearance (almost always a road/highway overpass). Along with the capital costs, there is also a chance of increased property tax.
Another problem is electric supply – railroad electrification relies on a reliable source of electric power.
Erik ==> We already do trains for long-haul. The train that passes a block from my house carries endless cars stacked two-high with 40 and 53 foot intermodal sea containers and hi-cubes.
The only change would be to electric.
Kip, the minimum long haul distance for intermodal by rail is now typically greater than 500 miles in the U.S., with the exception of Florida (a lot more freight goes to Miami than comes from it and truckers don’t want to haul empties). Going “all-electric” for freight would reduce the minimum long-haul distance favoring rail down to 200 to 300 miles.
Some recent changes that may make railroad electrification a bit easier is greatly improved battery technology, which would allow for gaps in the electrified trackage (no need for extra clearance under bridges). Equally important is advancements in power electronics that allow efficient operation off of constant voltage batteries.
All this assumes that we need to end the use of diesel fuel for transportation and I’m dubious about the necessity. There may be reasons for diesel alternatives in areas with high air pollution. An example was the Southern California Regional Rail Authority held a series of meeting about electrifying freight railroad operations in the L.A. air basin circa 1991-92. The idea was dropped when the price tag reached $4B, half of which was raising clearances from road overpasses.
Erik ==> I agree, I don’t know how much “pollution” or CO2 emissions comes from rail. I think that even if it was a good idea, the cost would exceed any possible advantage.
Kip, in 1991 the pollution of concern was NOx and particulates, both of which have been reduced with the Tier 3 and tier 4 emissions limits. There have been tests of using CNG with spark ignited versions of locomotive engines for switching in the L.A. air basin.
Erik ==> I was born and reiased in LA – lived through the 50s and 60s. I know what real smog is…and it ain’t there now.
A whole lot of rail infrastructure was torn up and even the intermodal transfer yards are maxed out. Who’s gonna pay to lay all the new track required and the new yards?
You are sucker.They aren’t going to pay for anything. You are going to pay for everything. Their real agenda is to impoverish, humiliate, and demoralize you and everyone like you. They won’t be happy until you taste the lash.
H2 with on-demand generation. All you need is electricity and water – something pretty much every gas station already has.
Refueling may take a bit longer, but still well short of the 50X longer duration to recharge large batteries.
Or you could add some C atoms to the H2 and have a better, much safer fuel. We could call it gas….
Gas stations don’t have nearly enough electrical power to make H2 out of water to produce the same amount of energy they deliver now in their fuel. The entire nation would have to be rewired, and there still wouldn’t be enough generator capacity to produce it (unless we quadrupled our number of coal fired power plants to produce it).
Tom ==> The idea is to have huge tanks of hydrogen at the fueling stations, like giant propane tanks.
The entire nation ( more or less ) has to be rewired for an All-Electric Nation — EVs and all electric homes and offices.
No more than needed for EV charging – probably less, to be honest… You can make H2 24/7, and store some. Don’t have to produce all when there’s a truck present.
Shanghai Dan,
I don’t know if you are aware, but hydrogen burns invisibly, or nearly so. Given that hydrogen is harder to contain in storage tanks and pipelines, I for one would like to be able to see the fuel burning if and when it escapes and catches fire. How about you?
One of the plausible explanations for the Hindenburg blimp disaster in 1937 is believed to have been escaping hydrogen from the ship which was ignited by static electricity sparks on the outside of the ship. Boom! The video of it is on YouTube.
I spent a few years in electric generating plants, all of which used H2 to cool the generators. I’ve seen an H2 fire at a storage tank and the results of at least one H2 explosion. H2 not only burns cleanly, it explodes quite cleanly, leaving very clean debris laying around. In one case it put a large generating unit out of service for months. Since I’m an old guy, I probably won’t be around to see the reports of 18-wheeler Li-ion fires or H2 explosions on the nation’s highways, but I’m sure they’ll be spectacular.
Robert ==> Thanks for sharing your story — great!
Shanghai and CD ==> Yep, didn’t your high school science teacher make a test tube of hydrogen with electrolysis and then use a match to a ignite a “pop”? No flame.
My son, then 12, blew up a six foot diameter balloon full of hydrogen 100 feet above our neighborhood after dark with exciting effect!
Besides the below mentioned need for station rewiring for a lot more capacity (if available) to electrolyze hydrogen, the cost to do so would be prohibitive. Takes about 5 to 7 X more energy to extract hydrogen from water than it produces. Nice chemistry class experiment, but not too practical in production
Slowroll ==> The nutty plan is to generally produce hydrogen by electrolysis using solar someplace like North Africa and shipping the hydrogen around like CNG.
No intention of producing hydrogen at point of sale.
H2 is just a storage medium. It’s not an energy source. You can either be wasteful with power, do H2, and save time – or you can save SOME power, do EVs, and waste a lot of time.
Either of these options are ridiculous solutions to a non-problem. But as an fyi to commieBob and the rest of you-all. Ammonia is already produced in large quantities for fertilizer. Those big white tanks at the farm coop labeled Anhydrous Ammonia are what you are talking about. In this case Google is your friend, for pictures and background information. As a teenager, I was on the tractor pulling that rig around the field squirting the stuff into the ground. Just make sure the valves are shut and you are up-wind when disconnecting hoses. It is not handled much differently than liquified propane. I also drove a propane tractor on occasion.
What fun.
Yep. A big advantage for ammonia is that it is very commonly used and there is a sizeable infrastructure devoted to it. There is also history.
The X-15 rocket plane was powered by ammonia. Unsurprisingly, there are modern proposals to use ammonia as jet fuel. link
Also, there’s a long history of using ammonia as a motor fuel.
I hasten to point out that ammonia, and every other alternative fuel, is not as good as fossil fuels.
I recall a segment of “Who Killed the Electric Car” (2006) detailing how the California Air Resources Board (CARB) scrapped support of EVs because hydrogen vehicles were just around the corner. Bureaucrats have terrible track records picking winners and losers. Yet governments are still in that business. When will we learn?
Never?
Progressives are goldfish, 9 seconds of memory
“Truck Makers Face a Tech Dilemma: Batteries or Hydrogen?”
As an engineer, the dilemma is much broader than NYT thinks. They are asking each company to to do a feasibility study essentially at full scale. I’ve managed a number of mining feasibility studies (actually in rare metals like Li, rare earths, etc. for which I have hydrometallurgical production patents) and they go through scoping, prefeasibility and bankable feasibility. Following that is the design phase where some more issues arise requiring new testing to resolve.
AND the entire renewable energy system that the trucks will use,has gone through $-several trillion prefeasibility at scale and still isnt working.The route of adding on patches that still aren’t near satisfactory to shore up an as yet failed tech is a huge no-no to an experienced engineer. Remember that conception of this new electrical system came from activist/politico/U. Professors, not Fluor Corp or it’s like. No feasibility study has ever been done.
It is however, typical leftard policy making about technical issues by art or poly-sci majors.
Sure all the politically-connected woke corporations are paying lip service to Green lunacy, but in the end, diesel will continue to rule. At a minimum using biodiesel.
Yeah, I’m going to go ahead and choose door #3.
What effin emissions? CO2 is plant food.
Beta vs VHS? 8 track vs cassette?
Trivial examples, but it shows that a superior alternative can show up if you can sit on the sidelines for a bit.
Imo ==> Exactly — what if someone comes up with a REAL battery? High density energy storage, fast in, fast out, low weight?
Which is about as likely as switching to teams of unicorns fed by munching magic beans.
Rich ==> When I was sitting in front of a B&W TV screen watching the first Moon landing, the idea that I would be communicating simultaneously with 10,000 or so total strangers by typing on a little keyboard in my lap was “about as likely as switching to teams of unicorns fed by munching magic beans.”
Marketing ability and government regulations often chose an inferior product as the winner.
Andy ==> At lest as a market place winner…..
Evidence- vacuum fluorescent bulb, twisty nightmares
This comparison of costs of EVs vs ICE vehicles needs to go viral.
TEWS ==> Thanks for the link and chart!
Just another shoot – ready – aim from the ecoloons. Deadlines to produce results with no real methods of achieving the goals available. This too will be kicked down the road forever. Virtue signaling only works in a virtual world.
Batteries over hydrogen….but bio or synthetic diesel fuel over them both….
DMac ==> Why synthetic? Why bio? There’s plenty of oil (in reality), why not just use that? Rhetorical question.
If e could fit 400 miles-equivalent of battery power in the space the size to tanks for 200 gallons of diesel, with batteries that would charge in an hour (enough time to pee, shower, and eat dinner) at a Truck Stop of America, we’d be set.
Kip,
I have no idea what the timetable(s) are for phasing out ICE trucks, but if I were a manufacturer, I wouldn’t be willing to lift a finger to comply, other than issuing the occasional eco-puff piece. Unless some alternative can be shown to be practical or economic, I’d be willing to bet that these arbitrary eco-deadlines will prove to be highly elastic, and, in fact, will disappear altogether once enough people catch on that their liberties and standard of living are increasingly at risk to the eco-nutters
Yes.
This article is a blatant example of the classic fallacy: FALSE DICHOTOMY.
As others have pointed out already, the answer is: neither.
The most effective, efficient, technology is: INTERNAL COMBUSTION (diesel or gas).
*********************************
Re: “I have an unsettled, not-yet-formed opinion.”
Disgusting. You are trying to hide (and doing a poor job of it, by the way) the fact that you are for grabbing market share by fiat and will go whichever way the taxpayer subsidy wind blows.
Janice ==> Thanks for stopping by. The dichotomy is for the sake of discussion prompted by the original news article. This is, after all, a News Brief (as stated clearly in the byline).
I’m not quite sure what you think I might be hiding or how I might be “for grabbing market share by fiat” — I don’t have a dog in this fight.
Whichever way the markets blows, it won’t do so for many years and by then I will have joined my ancestors.
I do hope that you are right and that the mania for “all things green” won’t for suicidal decisions on the people of the world, but…California all over.
I beg your pardon, Mr. Hansen. I was aiming my sharp criticism at the original news article’s author. I completely failed to make that clear.
Please, forgive me.
Janice Who Is Very Sorry 😔
Janice ==> No worries. If my skin was any thicker (after writing here for a decade) I’d be like an elephant! Always glad to hear from you.
Thank you!
Frank ==> Of course, replace 13 million trucks is not going to happen overnight, or even this decade.
But part of the supply chain problem, and the problem of ports overcrowded with undelivered sea containers is/was California’s banning trucks older than some arbitrary age. See
https://realtruckmaster.blog/2021/10/14/california-nightmare-for-truckers/
You describe a problem created by government fiat. And of course these people can only see a solution in more government fiat
I’m just a wee bit confused on this H2 argument. They want to get rid of fossil fuel ICEs because of the green house gas emissions, and replace them with an H2 ICE that emits an even stronger green house gas. I must be missing something here–not that I’m against more water in the atmosphere.
John ==> You have to day that with a /sarc tag.
Atmospheric H2O won’t be changed a bit — plenty of water on this 2/3 Water World.
Good post Kip. I suspect that diesel and gasoline ICE will be around for a very long time.
Andy ==> Well, gosh, me too! (Can a man say that?)
13 million over the road trucks will not be retired anytime soon — nor will 13 million replacement, or whatever alternative fuel source, be pumped out of dreamland.
Over 1.4 billion ICEVs in the world today compared to 16m EVs. IEA expects about 70m EVs by 2040 Even if they are out by a factor of 10 (unlikely) there will still be twice as many ICEVs as EVs then.
And that doesn’t take into account any growth of ICEVs over the next 18 years.
So, future supply chain crises are a good thing?
Future supply chain crises are already on the horizon. IEA foresees potential shortages of lithium and cobalt as early as 2025.
My prediction re: “Wagering incorrectly could cost them billions of dollars.” Wagering on either of these “solutions” will cost them billions. My bet is that the entire EV market will collapse in the next 10 years leaving only a small number of EVs around for a variety of reasons.
There is an “alternative” fuel that has environmental advantages over diesel. Di methyl ether (DME):
More info in the videos below
https://youtu.be/wJIretzSryo
https://youtu.be/n3LiV9vviw8
Kip, let me tell you a story.
My next door neighbour has an oldish Range River and it needed its yearly government-mandated safety check, the MOT. He drove it to the testing station and left it. When he came back the mechanic was very apologetic – the emission testing equipment had failed and was reading zero particulates and zero NOX.
So he booked it in later that week. When he got there he was at the back of the queue and it wouldn’t be checked until much later. It passed, NOX and particulates both highish but within limits. Talking to the mechanic he found out that the testing equipment had been checked and recalibrated but there was nothing wrong.
When a CNG conversion car starts it uses petrol until it has fully warmed up, then switches to the compressed natural gas. The first time it was tested it was warmed up so was running on the CNG. The second time it was cold. The mechanic was not pleased.
The moral? Forget ammonia, hydrogen, ethyl alcohol. Is clean, low carbon natural gas.
JF
Rover dammit!
Julian ==> Your neighbor’s car is a CNG converted Range River?
In Coney Weston we go with the flow.
JF
Julian ==> Maybe I’ll fly over and attend your Annual Village Meeting.
Readers: Don’t forget to mark your calendars: Thu, Apr. 21, 2022 7:00pm
No; both options are technological losers. The winner will be whichever side can bribe and bamboozle the largest number of idiot politicians. Merit has no role here.
Both of these ideas are unviable. If you are going to mandate the elimination of fossil fuel trucks they must be replaced by rail powered by nuclear produced electricity. This will still only eliminate long range trucking. Short distance delivery will still need liquid fossil fuel.
Tom ==> I’m with you on nuclear for electricity base-load. Not sure about electric transcontinental trains.
When I saw the title (only partially visible in the InBox subject line), I thought THIS was the type of “battle” we’d be seeing. Seriously! 🙂
Janice ==> I am not a NASCAR, Monster Truck sort of guy. I thought of a truck tug-of-war though.
🙂
In what form is the hydrogen used in a fuel cell? Is there “a tank full of pure hydrogen strapped under the seat” that might be able to fuel an explosion?
I once watched a YouTube video about someone who was producing his own hydrogen for his home built electric car. The claimed power and performance figures were impressive and the claimed mileage per fill-up was 1000 miles. Recently Toyota announced an new (experimental) hydrogen powered auto with a 2000 km range.
Andy ==> Don’t know — not an engineer, but the Wiki has a good explanation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cell
Fuel cells need a constant flow of H2 to produce electricity.
Bet the 712 battery trucks sold were bought by government agencies.
“The environmental side is hugely important but if it doesn’t make financial sense, nobody’s going to do it”.
If only that were true. If only. Game theory (paraphrasing Warren Buffett) says that if the tax break or government subsidy is large enough, then companies will do it even if there is no other reason to do it.
Here in the Northeast USA it is not unheard of to have Ice storms that knock out power to multiple cities for a week. How will these powerless trucks deliver food to the citizens? How will the citizens get to work and food stores in their EVs?
“argues that fuel cells that convert hydrogen into electricity — emitting only water vapor…”
They do realize that water is the most active greenhouse gas in the atmosphere? Sure, it will cycle out, but if you add enough water vapor to a local area through agriculture and now, semi-trucks, you get local warming. Just look at the Death Valley area for confirmation of this. In fact, a lot of so-called global warming is nothing more than local thermometers being warmed up by local agriculture practices in the Midwest and West areas of the U.S. This is why most warming disappears as you move away from cities (UHI) and high water-use land areas.
How about the US government require a demonstration project with, say, 50 EV heavy trucks, and show, from a whole cradle to grave analysis, how they reduce CO2 emissions. I submit that they will be net CO2 positive when compared to diesel fueled trucks. Prove this wrong before commitment of our entire economy to failure.
John ==> Quit being so reasonable! Gads, everyone hates a realist!
A little more Pie-In-The-Sky, please!
I think the H2/fuel cell option will win out.
Good for you, Tom.1. 🙄
Tom1 ==> Got a reason? Or just a hunch? (Hunches are ok, just asking.”
I’ve not studied this in depth, but obviously some people who have agree with me.
Tom.1 ==> re: safety. What can be safe in a professional industrial environment doesn’t necessarily equate to safety in the hands of the common man.
Obviously, that depends, but we already have hydrogen fuel cell powered cars being driven around by ordinary people. What particular knowledge do you have to pronounce hydrogen unsafe.
2022 Toyota Mirai Fuel Cell Vehicle | Innovation is Power
Tom.1 ==> Yes, maybe, supposedly they sold about 10,000 in the US in six years. I suspect to municipalities with whom partnerships have been formed to include a fueling station.
So far, there is only one public H2 station I could find in NY State.
“Anyone with a bit of chemistry background can make enough H2 at home to be dangerous (ask me, I had my three boys in home school). That said, it does burn cleanly producing only energy and H2O.”
What did you make the H2 from? Never mind, I know it’s “made” from water. What’s the point of inefficiently making H2 from water only to turn around and make water from H2?
MM ==> Oh, they didn’t make it from water. Aluminum and lye.
They had to have a source of hydrogen. So, likely water.
Banning diesel trucks is not going to happen in the US.
Battery power seems to have the edge in the present moment.
I’m skeptical that’s even possible with cars-
Toyota Warns About Rushing Into Electrification (msn.com)
Toyota continue to make profits with the half way house of hybrids allowing them to pour large resources into research and their batterification skepticism is shared by Stellantis BMW and lately Aston Martin. In the absence of taxpayer mining electric cars remain the preserve of the well to do luxury car buyer and Tesla milks them the best of all. OTOH trucks have to earn their keep and where are all the zero emissions ones compared to cars?
observa ==> The Toyota hybrids seem to get better gas mileage when coupled with overnight charging.
PHEVs can certainly achieve that but it would appear once you add that capability over non plugin hybrid it pushes the price up nearer full BEV pricing. Ipso facto you have two clear market winners in Toyota and Tesla although the former hasn’t lived off subsidy mining.
The only way batteries of current technology will work with long haul trucks is to make batteries interchangeable.
It is very common in Australia for electricity wholesale price to be negative on a daily basis, mostly during the middle of the day due to the uptake of rooftop solar. Making use of that window to charge batteries could be economic – the grid batteries are making some of their income on the price arbitrage. It also seems more economic to have batteries sitting around being charged rather than a whole truck with its load and the driver waiting around.
The idea of producing hydrogen economically from solar power, even in Australia, appears improbable. The best solar capacity factor possible is around 34%. So the production facility would need to about 4 times its rated output to give continuous production by using 75% of the hydrogen produced to supply power to make the electrolysis process continuous and stable.
Rick ==> These ideas are not based on reality or common sense. They make these decisions due to Climate Change Derangement Syndrome.
Hydrogen gets the nod because water emissions appeal to popular sensibilities. Then, when hydrogen is established, climate alarmists can point out that H2O is a polluting greenhouse gas as bad or worse than CO2 – it’s win-win!!!
BallBounces ==> Just wait until the first H2 Refill Station blows an entire city block to smithereens.
Hydrogen Fueling More Than Triples Cost
Nikola Corp. CEO Mark Russell believes that making hydrogen at fueling stations by electrolysis of water is the new way of electric trucking. Russell explains that producing hydrogen at each fueling station can produce hydrogen fuel below the cost of diesel. Russell says the cash cost to manufacture one kilogram of hydrogen at fueling stations is 100 times the cost of a kilowatt-hour of electricity. He says today’s cost of a gallon of diesel at $2.42 has the same energy content as a kilo of hydrogen, then hydrogen is less costly only where electricity costs less than 2.42 cents ($0.0242) per kwhr. But electricity cost averaged $0.077 per kwhr for 32 states in 2016, so where is inexpensive electricity in the U.S. to manufacture hydrogen at less cost without massive federal or state subsidy? Russell implies by his statement that hydrogen is not an economical alternative in the U.S. without subsidies because electricity averages $0.077/kwhr which translates to cost of hydrogen at $7.70/kg or equivalent to paying $7.70 per gallon of diesel, so Nikola’s hydrogen is triple today’s diesel cost, the fuel that Nikola plans to replace. In Arizona, California and Germany where Nikola will locate operations the cost of industrial scale electricity is three-fold more expensive where it sold for $0.075 to $0.105 to $0.36 per kwhr respectively in 2016.
The Hydrogen Scenario easily fails if (1) subsidies unavailable or (2) if electric costs skyrocket to levels in Australia (34cents-47 cents/kwh), Denmark, Germany (43-44 cents/kwhr) and other European countries (22-35 cents/kwh) or if wind turbines generate power, as for example in Ontario Canada (44 cents/kwhr).
Transport Topics, Jun 22, August 17 2020 and other sources
David ==> As of late last year:
“As of today, we have completed eight (8) gamma trucks. We have begun building pre-series trucks in Coolidge, Arizona and continue to work steadfastly towards our commitment to deliver up to 25 trucks to dealers and customers by December 2021. ”
I’d call that still experimental but hopeful — I wouldn’t invest a nickle in Nikola though.
No the Biden Administration still feels there’s a bigger dollar to be had in drilling by all accounts-
Public lands to reopen for oil and gas drilling in a first under Biden (msn.com)
Perhaps Truck Batteries and Hydrogen are false choices, promoted only by out of touch governmental and environmental groups. The “required justification to mandate these two options” is predicated on criterion pollutant reductions only, lower GHG emissions is not legally required but serves the political interest. Today’s cleanest diesels are, according to California Air Resources Board, Emission Mobile Source Factors (EMFAC), 99.97% lower in Particulate Matter than 1990 models as measured in the laboratory. On-Road these cleanest diesels become Negative Emitter Vehicles (NEV) for: PM, HC, and CO in air violation areas. NEV tailpipe emissions are lower than intake air pollutants. The proposed 2026 NOx Standards for heavy duty diesels are lower than power plant emission rates used for EV changing. Renewable diesel and biodiesel fuels make all conventional diesels lower CO2 emitters than EVs and Hydrogen for all predominant fuel sources. As a side note if California eliminated all gasoline fuel use immediately -I calculate a 0.000043 °F reduced in increasing global temperatures -assuming 0.5 to 2.5 °C for a double of CO2 emissions, and a 50-year CO2 residence time.
Hydrogen retails in California @ $16+ per Kg (gasoline gallon equivalent) and is dead on arrival in a market sustainable economy. Based on 27-years of California natural gas retail prices, as a surrogate for hydrogen; hydrogen fuel prices will be mid-$20 per kg in near term and approaching $30/kg by 2030.
I see NGOs and Governmental agencies prompting this Truck Battery and Hydrogen fantasy about to hit an economic diesel reality wall.
G. Yowell ==> Can’r say I disagree – – – at least at this moment. Improved ICEs (and Diesels) is probably the best solution for over-the-road with local deliveries being made with small EV trucks.
Rail with catenary power for long haul makes far more sense than any of this nonsense . . . H2 or battery only makes sense for short haul local use.
Why not invest just a fraction of the money into fuel cells? No problems with fuel, just fill with water. Shouldn’t be too hard to collect the waste product (water) and pump it back into the tank to minimise waste.
We could even use them as water purifiers – cities give free water to cars, fuel (water) tanks have an easy empty system to remove all the contaminants after a few tankfuls and pure water can go back into the system.
Would it even take $1 Bn to find a decent catalyst? that was an original issue but we seemed to have little difficulty solving that issue for lead-free petrol ICE’s.
I expect we’ll see both approaches reach commercial success. Metal hydrides provide low-temperature, low pressure hydrogen storage at an energy density even greater than liquid hydrogen with none of the latter’s issues. Technology to generate hydrogen from waste offers a cheaper way to get hydrogen than natural gas or hydrolysis. Non-lithium batteries, such as Air Aluminum, are approaching commercialization, and the Air Aluminum battery is recyclable. These technologies are approaching marketability; the tremendous amount of R&D devoted to them should find the path to complete their development. The success of R&D in past technological changes tends to be overlooked, but so often “where there’s a will there’s a way” proves turns out to be true. For example, here is a timeline for three of the US early military jet engines:
Year Model Thrust(lbs) Aircraft
1946 J33 4,000 P-80
1948 J47 6,000 F-86, B-47
1951 J57 10,000 B-52, F-100, F-101
The J57 had twice the thrust of its competitors thanks to an innovative double shaft axial compressor.
It’s a shame the eco-warriors couldn’t let a transition to electric powered transportation evolve naturally, but as a pilot the 100+ engine failure accidents in general aviation each year make the simplicity and redundancy possible with electric motors look awfully attractive.
Jack ==> Yes, pushing technology with political preferences is a bad bad idea.
Has anyone calculated the total CO2 output of a heavy and medium-heavy truck fleet as a percentage of a country’s total CO2 emissions? I’m guessing its a very small percentage. The diesel engine is very well suited for heavy hauling .To eradicate it for no good CO2 result and a vastly more costly product would be foolish eco-zealotry.
And the winner is – DIESEL
Use ammonia as a hydrogen carrier. Half the energy density of fossil fuels but combine with fuel cell technology and net energy density can beat gasoline!
Biggest H2 problem is cost…appears to be twice the cost of gasoline/diesel. Fuel cells use platinum as a catalyst…I assume it is 100% recyclable but must be the most expensive one around. I don’t believe H2 in the high pressure tanks is any more dangerous than gasoline. People always try to build a better mouse trap but the old one with the little piece of wood and a wire spring is still proven and cheap. No mention here of super capacitors in place of batteries…apparently capacitors just don’t function well for the current/voltage required by electric motors even though a few people use super caps in place of a car battery. There is also aviation EVs….mostly battery powered but some unmanned drones use fuel cells. Aviation demands more than surface transportation but air taxi service over short distances is closer than most people think.
Last week we were running the numbers for green electricity demand and costs after converting cars (gasoline). Un-possible. So now you’re adding diesel (trains? tractors? trucks? buses? Heavy trailer hauling pick-ups? Tesla charging stations?) and acting like it’s a thing? GMAFB. (Give me a break.) Heck, why not jet fuel?
If you’re going to accept electric power in this way, you’re going to have to burn something to get it.
“Electric city buses, short-haul people-carrying vans like airport shuttles, or local delivery vans all make basic sense for batteries, as these types of vehicles return to a central depot each day where they can be recharged and maintained. ”
However, it is likely that these vehicles will need to be traded out during a day as, with lots of starting and stopping, charge will not last the full range at all. This means vehicles that are three times more expensive than ICE vehicles and two to three times more of them, meaning 6 to 9 times in investment and lots of inconvenience. [Regenerative braking is a minor consideration, as the more often energy is transformed from one form to another, the more the energy losses.]
Also, “Ewing points out that H2 trucks will be lighter and can be fueled (once there are fueling stations) in a similar manner to diesel trucks.”
This is simply not true as hydrogen is a gas that has to be transferred under pressure and held under pressure all the time. Technologically, this is much more complicated, hydrogen is energy expensive to make, and all of this more prone to failures. Sure, a hydrogen fire tends to go up, but there will be more of them than gasoline fires for sure. It’s is not as green as they would like us to think.
Electric taxis in an inner city can make sense, but, again, there will have to be larger fleets of taxis and their expense will mean higher taxis rates, again for sure.
Some people claim that H2 from dairy farms is practically free…maybe animal waste can produce cheap H2 but how much? The basic problem here is as someone else said – gubment is the problem – not the solution. I don’t have a problem with…say Teslas….I just want ICE vehicles to be competition…and Teslas not subsidized and required to pay road taxes. I believe electric motors are superior to ICE motors but it’s the fuel that is the problem…that gasoline tank beats batteries and H2. The basic question of does man made CO2 cause any or significant climate warming has not been properly answered. What are they going to say one day when it is perfectly clear that CO2 is not the villain? Oops?