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.
# # # # #
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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 @ur momisugly $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?