Why JCB thinks that hydrogen is the best alternative to diesel for heavy machinery.

[Mart]

I'm somewhat baffled by the comments seeming to suggest that HFCEV's will be needed because BEV's won't be powerful enough. That's a bit daft given that HFCEV's are not powered by H2, they are BEV's, powered by leccy. The hydrogen is just an energy storage, which has to be turned back into leccy, to run the BEV.

A BEV excavator is more likely to have more power than a HFCEV, since fuel cells cost so much, so in HFCEV's fuel cells are sized for average energy draw, using the battery as a buffer. If you run them at full power, then after the buffer is exhausested, they will only run at the power of the fuel cell output, just like a BEV Rx has less power once the battery is exhausted, and a HFCEV is nothing more than a glorified BEV Rx just replacing the engine and fuel tank with a fuelcell stack and H2 tank.

Also, electric motors, either running the vehicle or hydraulics are extremely powerful, far more powerful than diesel engines, that's why the largest vehicles (open cast mine bucket wheel excavators, dump trucks and trains) are electric or diesel-electric (where the diesel engine is simply a generator).

Electric motors are the more powerful option, and a HFCEV is a BEV, just one with some leccy stored as H2.


So the choice of vehicle is a BEV, with a power source of leccy from the powerstation to site, or

a BEV, that has some of its battery removed, a fuel cell added, a H2 tank added, and with a power source of leccy from powerstation - H2 production site and electrolyzers (with losses) - then compressed or liquidized (with losses) - then transported to site (with losses) - then transferred to the HFCEV - then converted back to leccy via the fuelcell stack (with losses) - then used by the BEV.

Quite why anyone would want to buy a more expensive HFCEV, to run at higher fuel costs (roughly 3x the leccy consumption of a BEV due to all the losses), and with higher maintenance and repair costs, I don't know.

Where might H2 be useful for land based transport, well perhaps long distance road freight, or coaches which carry a spare driver and can theoretically drive almost non-stop, other than fuel stops. But if the Tesla Semi can charge roughly 400 miles in 45 mins, then for a single driver, complying with the law, then there is no benefit from a HFCEV.

[spread-tee]

I was thinking more of an ICE running directly on H2, rather than mucking about with fuel cells and etc. It is energy that is the problem not so much power. They probably need both options really, that little mini would run happily on batteries but this bigger machine might be a problem

https://www.jcb.com/en-gb/products/trac ... tors/js330

and they get a lot bigger than that.

If you have a read of Chris Goodalls book, "what we need to do now" he suggests a vast increase in wind and PV as they are already scaled and well tested, also there is a reasonable degree of public acceptance to that tech. With spare capacity we can afford green electrolytic Hydrogen to run all those hard to electrify situations, plant, long distance heavy trucks, heating, cement, steel......and plenty left over for gloomy lulls.

He calculates with a twenty fold increase in green leccy, in 2018 there would have been only about thirty days when we were not generating enough for the demand, in that case storage doesn't need to be vast, therefore there is plenty of H2 for burning. Many boiler manufacturers have already developed H2 ready appliances, and all that yellow pipe we have just buried under all our streets are compatible with H2. I can personally vouch for the fact after 35 years as a gas reg plumber there is very little appetite for upgrading heating systems in most houses for heat pumps.

Who knows?

Desp

[spread-tee]

He can explain it a lot better than I

https://www.carboncommentary.com/blog/2 ... heat-pumps

and

https://www.carboncommentary.com/blog/2 ... at-we-need

He is quite a good read, give it a go.

TTFN

peed

[Mart]

I've been following Chris Goodall for years, he's great, been getting his weekly Carbon Commentary Newsletter for probably 5yrs, though he's on a sabatical at the moment.

Your first link explains the potential benefits of H2 for space heating (not heavy plant ICE's). I also think there may be some benefit in adding H2 to mains gas, but there are also lots of issues. Or perhaps it could be used to make synthetic methane by co-locating with a source of captured carbon from a short termn carbon cycle process.

Your second link mentions a host of uses for H2, that I agree with, but where it refers to HFCEV's it falls down. It talks about the Nikola Badger pick up, and the Nikola HFCEV semi truck. Nikola is under investigation by the US SEC for fraud, the badger has been cancelled, and the specs for the semi have now halved the range on a tank of H2, and revised their weight estimates up from 1,000 to 2,000lbs lighter than a diesel, to 1,000 to 2,000lbs heavier. Nikola's own cost estimates at the lighter weight, and double the range, where a fraction cheaper than diesel per mile, using old and outdated diesel running costs, so now they will be around 3x higher than diesel ...... though it's doubtful they will ever build the HFCEV, and the video of it 'in motion' has now been shown to be one of it rolling down hill, not operational at speed. However, they are now planning to build BEV trucks in the near future, I don't believe they even have planned track testing for a HFCEV truck in their upto 2025 plans. So I don't think that link supports H2 in the context of this discussion, as the referenced example has already collapsed. [Fun note, Nikola was exposed as a scam, particularly on the hydrogen side, by a company that goes by the name of Hindenberg.]

So I think you are conflating the positives of using H2 in our future, and Chris Goodall's comments, with the far more questionable issue of using H2 for trucks and heavy plant.

Yes we will have lots of excess leccy in the medium to long term, but only after all of the conventional intra-day storage has been filled, and BEV batts charged. Then there will be cheap excess leccy for use as cheap H2, but that's a way off. So you need cheap leccy, before you can have cheap H2 (still many multiples of the cost of the leccy).

Locating H2 production at power station sites for grid support makes a ton of sense. Also locating production at major ports for ships, or perhaps major train intersections for rail, may be beneficial. But having 1,000's of locations around any given country, or less locations, but having to transport it far further, is a massive duplication of energy consumption/waste.




If you are now talking about energy, then there may be a case for locations where a leccy supply is not possible, but your posts referred to power not energy, and belittled the examples Dan gave. First you said these vehicles needed to be able to put out a couple of hundred KW, then you said some have a 400kW motor - my ickle car puts out about 370kW, the latest Tesla saloon car is ~775kW, and the Tesla Semi is to use 4 TM3 rear motors, which are around 250kW each. So if you want serious power, then you use a leccy motor not an ICE (as demonstrated for decades in diesel electric dump trucks, trains etc).

You also admitted that the small excavator was fine, but again questioned the ability of larger excavators to run as a BEV. Now that's just silly! If the smaller vehicle is capable, then scaling up will not be an issue, you 'just' make everything bigger, and once again, your issue there appears to be power (not energy), and electric motors have more power.

The JCB vid talks about the much higher cost of a BEV Astra v's an ICE Astra, which is kind of a nonsense given that a BEV is already cheaper in TCO terms (total cost of ownership), and purchase costs are expected to fall fast, with the potential of price parity in 2025-27. It also mentions that an ICE H2 tractor will be 10-15% more expensive than a diesel (but costs should fall, (just like BEV's)). So BEV's will get cheaper fast, as will the cost of charging them as intra-day storage grows, and cheap night rate charging expands. Hopefully H2 costs will fall sometime after this but will always contain 3x to 4x the multiple costs of leccy due to all the inefficiencies.

Add in the duplication of costs of having to transport H2 around a country, and as you suggest, this may only be suitable for edge cases. But there is no question about the power available, or the superior performance of an electric motor v's an ICE engine.

[spread-tee]

Agreed Mart, H2 is horrible shit that should never have been invented..............

Seriously though, power and energy as I am sure you know are not the same, I have not said anywhere that electric motors are not powerful enough, your car can put out 370kW max which is pretty impressive, how long for?? but a medium biggish digger may have to deliver 150kW for hours on end, it could use 6 or 8 hundred kWhr a day, now that is a challenge for a battery. Same issue for a big Scanny, on a long distance run it could do upwards of 350 miles a day at about 5-6 ish to the gallon. You can do the maths for this one. We also already have a grid to transport gas, and of course it only makes sense given that we do have loads of spare green leccy. when, if???

I don't know what the story is about the badger truck, it's beside the point really.

Have you read his chapters on food production, clothing and Geo-engineering? that'll really put the cat among the pidgeons

Sread

[Mart]

Nope not beside the point, entirely the point.

To support HFCV's you repeatedly referred to Chris Goodall. You then supplied a link listing a number of uses for H2, which I agree with. But the part related to HFCV's talked about the Nikola Badger and the Nikola One hydrogen truck. It was your link, to support your position, on this very issue.

Nikola, certainly their hydrogen claims, is a complete scam, that was clear to most following the evolution of the Nikola One. The Nikola One was announced and displayed in 2016, and I watched the launch event the next day. To ally fears and bump up the price of shares for their IPO they released a video showing the Nikola One Semi apparently travelling at speed on a long flat road. The video was called the Nikola One in motion. Then, following the enormous number of reservations the Tesla Cybertruck took on launch, they announced the Badger HFCV pickup, to, as the now fired CEO has admitted, to attract investment from retail share buyers.

The Semi was actually free rolling down a long stretch of road that has a steady gradient, and the Badger was never more than vapourware, and was immediately cancelled, with none ever built, as soon as the truth about Nikola was revealed.

Nikola have not produced and sold a single vehicle yet, and as I explained, their longer term plans do not yet even include track testing of a HFCV semi truck. However, they, like so many other companies, are developing BEV trucks.

So no, I don't think your link supports HFCV's, quite the opposite.



To be clear I'm not knocking H2, so to imply that seems silly, I made it clear in my comment that I agree with most of the planned uses for H2, just not for land vehicles, though I also accept your argument for edge cases, though that reasonable 'edge case' argument of yours seem to be constantly contradicted by your general claims about the energy needed. leading to...



As for energy consumption of BEV's, I've no idea why you see that as the main issue, when BEV's are already meeting the needs of many, in many roles, whereas hydrogen fuelled vehicles are still at the early stages. You mention a large truck doing 350 miles a day, well the Tesla semi comes in two offerings, a 300 mile range model, and a 500 mile range model. The ranges are based on ~2kWh/mile at max weight. So yes, it seems like the challenge you have set can be met, and surpassed. The 500 mile model will be able to add 400 miles in approx 45mins - I'm pretty sure that 900 miles (15hrs) is not even legal for a driver spread over 15hrs + a 45 min rest?

Can a large excavator run all day as a BEV, well small ones are already rolling out, and doing just fine, and I'm not clear why scaling up would be an issue - bigger vehicle, more power, larger batts.

If you are willing to truck in H2 fuel for hydrogen vehicles to a more remote site, then perhaps trucking in a large battery to recharge BEV's is also acceptable, and there's probably a leccy supply for the recharge of these batteries nearer to even the most remote worksite, than there will be a H2 production/supply.

And can I imagine a time when large portable batts for heavy plant recharging will be developed and deployed, well, a smaller batt for smaller plant recharges (upto46kWh) already exists, and it's produced by a company called JCB.


Edit - Regarding Chris Goodall - yes I think the guy is brilliant, and provides a ton of excellent information that I enjoy very, very much. In the case of Nikola, I don't believe Chris has created any misleading information, simply repeated in good faith, the lies and nonsense that Trevor Milton (ex CEO) was pretty much making up.

[spread-tee]

Hallo Mart,

the reason I refer to Chris Goodalls book is in reference to his basic idea that we hugely increase our wind and solar and with any spare we convert to H2 for any use we like, OK?

Sure there will be scammers getting in the way of clear thinking, this whole subject is a minefield of scammers /deniers/sceptics or whatever, f**k'em they're not the point, the point is are there 40 tonne electric trucks that can genuinely pound the motorways for a full working day and still get a charge in a reasonable time? Along with are there many other uses H2 could help us get off FFs?. You say there are, if so that's great If not H2 may be worth a look.

Where did I imply you were knocking H2??

desp

[Mart]

Agreed Mart, H2 is horrible shit that should never have been invented..............

A rather silly attempt to undermine my position regarding H2 vehicles in this discussion, given my repeated support for, and belief in H2 as being a major part of achieving a 100% RE leccy future.


The truck issues you raise are not reasonable edge cases, but repeated assertions that it's simply not possible to run a 350kW truck all day on leccy. But that's not a reasonable example, the truck won't be utilising 350kW, even at max weight, much of the time. Perhaps a hard pull off from zero, on a gradient, at max weight, for several minutes for the ICEV, but that's not that long. I mentioned my car has ~370kW, well in June I popped to see a forum friend in London, I drove about 150 miles, most at ~85mph, averaging 75mph as it took 2hrs, and at an average consumption of ~300Wh/mile. So ~45kWh over 2hrs = an average power consumption of 22.5kW (~30hp). That's sounds about right, I remember reading a decade or so back that a car needs about 50hp to maintain 100mph, 500hp to maintain 200mph and 1,000hp to maintain 250mph (the TM3 is particularly 'slippery').

The Tesla Semi's have been road testing now for about 3yrs, pulling loads, and appear to be meeting the 2kWh/mile figure at max weight, so around 120kW at 60mph, which also fits nicely with the claims of 500 miles from what is believed to be ~1MWh battery pack. Yes they can do approx 0-60mph in 5s (tractor) or 20s (max weight trailer), and that would reflect the 1,000kW power rating, but that's only for a tiny part of the journey, in fact, something that's unlikley to be ever used.

The same can be applied to the excavators, they won't be running at max power much of the time. Perhaps only if driving forward at max speed up a gradient. Most of the day they will be relatively stationary (though of course rotating) whilst operating the main equipment, this will be a much lower power draw (or average power draw).



So, back to the main issue here, could H2 be a sensible use in edge case heavy plant - yes I think it might, however, the only problems it would appear to be solving are the ability to fast refuel, and at a remote location. Trucking in H2 could be comparable to trucking in large charged batts from elsewhere, and if it's possible to swap out vehicle batts, then that would be even better, especially if you have heavy plant and skilled operators on site to handle this job.

In the case of farms and tractors, then does H2 really make much sense? The farm most likely has, or will have large amounts of PV installed, so swappeable batts would be ideal, especially across a range of vehicles that are used at different times of the year - akin to cordless tool sets where you save on costs by not buying one (or two) batts per tool. Why truck in expensive H2, if you have leccy (hopefully cheap leccy) on site.


So I'm not saying H2 won't work, I'm arguing against the proposition that BEV's won't work or may not be up to the job, and if I'm right, then producing another range of vehicles that are only needed for extreme edge cases seems expensive and possibly wasteful. Or if purchased by a construction company, then they will need to use them for jobs where a BEV would work, in order to maximise the return on their investment, at that point we have the consumption of H2 instead of leccy, and that H2 will require an input of 3 to 4x as much leccy. You'd be better off producing that H2 from the cheap excess leccy, at a large centralised site, and then turning it back into leccy when needed (high demand, low RE generation).

[Mart]

If it's of any interest, we also have a BEV Hyundai Ioniq, a 2018 28kWh model. I mention this because in 'sport' mode, it replaces the electric dash speedometer dial, with a 0-100% power dial. I found this interesting and amusing one day whilst driving along a moderately steep long straight road with lots of traffic lights.

Accelerating from zero to 30mph normally, not too hard, or too slow, took the dial to about 35-40% power. It's an 88kW (118bhp) motor, so around 35kW / 47bhp. Then maintaining 30mph uphill it would fall to about 15%, and on a flat dual carriageway at 70mph it was using about 20%.

The 28kWh battery is good for 130 miles, or 150 miles if driven gently (but not slowly).

[Mr Gus]

Throw this into the mix in the absence of data for heavy BEV-P (plant)

https://www.pistonheads.com/news/ph-eur ... dium/44465

Skoda entered a BEV dual motor rally car into the mix which came third overall, it was followed by a support team for charging needs, ..its rapid burn of electrons might / might not help with peaks & troughs of other vehicles with high requirements

"The Skoda RE-X1 Kreisel is a modified Fabia Rally2 evo, replacing its 1.6-litre turbo with electric motors and a 52.6kWh battery, and it's just finished the Rallye Weiz in Austria. That's 14 special stages (160km in total) and transfers, meaning 514km of driving. It obviously wasn't done on one charge, but the RE-X1 successfully completed full race distance. More than that, it finished in third place as well"

"Where the Kreisel Skoda is a little different, of course, is in keeping it charged up - there would be no chance of a service stop splash and dash with kWh to replenish. Moreover, a Fabia Rally2 can carry 82.5 litres of fuel and use 0.6 litres per kilometre of stage driving. The RE-X1, with slightly more power and torque (349hp and 442lb ft), uses 1.2 kWh per stage kilometre - but only holds 52.6kWh of energy. So the Fabia had a support truck; or, more specifically, 'Kreisel Electric Chimero mobile charging stations', providing a 200kW supply and ensuring an 80 per cent charge in 15 minutes, meaning no time penalties were incurred. Fully charged, the RE-X1 is said to be capable of taking on a 35km special stage, which would cover off most if not all events"

The charging station YUP, that's a BIG diesel, CARRYING A 200kw battery pack as the charge point, so harks back to the old generator charging battery virtue signalling argument, ..but this was a raw test to get data, not the norm going forward.

Take what you will from it, even if it were BEV vans that accessed sites & then recharged off nearby pre-existing infrastructure it wouldn't be much different to regular site access, or at worst, pylon access vehicles in the thick of muddy fields.