MY2018 vehicles have record high fuel economy with improved horsepower and acceleration
Hyundai US market fuel cell SUVs rack up 7.5M miles

Toyota, Kenworth, POLA and CARB unveil next-gen heavy-duty fuel-cell truck; ZANZEFF

Toyota, Kenworth, the Port of Los Angeles and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) unveiled the first of Toyota and Kenworth’s jointly developed fuel cell electric heavy-duty trucks during a special event held at the Port of Los Angeles.

001

The new generation zero-emission truck expands on the capabilities of Toyota’s first two Project Portal Proof-of-Concept trucks through enhanced capability, packaging, and performance while offering an estimated range of more than 300 miles per fill, twice that of a typical drayage trucks average daily duty cycle.

Toyota and Kenworth will deploy a total of 10 trucks as part of the Zero and Near-Zero Emissions Freight Facilities Project (ZANZEFF) (earlier post), hauling cargo received at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, throughout the LA Basin.

Toyota is committed to fuel cell electric technology as a powertrain for the future because it’s a clean, scalable platform that can meet a broad range of mobility needs with zero emissions. The ZANZEFF collaboration and the innovative ‘Shore-to Store’ project allow us to move Heavy-Duty Truck Fuel Cell Electric technology towards commercialization.

—Bob Carter, Executive Vice President for Automotive Operations Toyota

CARB has awarded $41 million dollars to the Port of Los Angeles for the ZANZEFF project as part of California Climate Investments, a California initiative that puts billions of Cap-and-Trade dollars to work reducing greenhouse gas emissions, strengthening the economy and improving public health and the environment―particularly in disadvantaged communities.

Since operations began in April 2017, the Project Portal “Alpha” and “Beta” Proof of Concept Class 8 trucks have logged more than 14,000 miles of testing and real-world drayage operations in and around the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach while emitting nothing but water vapor.

The first Kenworth/Toyota Fuel Cell Electric Truck (FCET) under the ZANZEFF project will begin drayage operations in the fourth quarter, increasing the ports’ zero emission trucking capacity and further reducing the environmental impact of drayage operations.

The latest Fuel Cell Electric truck utilizes the Kenworth T680 Class 8 model combined with Toyota’s fuel cell electric technology and is part of the ZANZEFF project. Pioneered by the Port of Los Angeles with leading support from Toyota, Kenworth, and Shell, the endeavor provides a large-scale “Shore-to-Store” plan and a hydrogen fuel-cell-electric technology framework for freight facilities to structure operations for future goods movement. The initiative will help reduce emissions by more than 500 tons of Greenhouse Gas and 0.72 weighted tons of nox, ROG and PM10.

The collaboration between the Port of Los Angeles, Kenworth, Toyota and Shell is providing an excellent opportunity to demonstrate the viability of fuel cell electric technology in both drayage service and regional haul commercial vehicle applications operating in Southern California. The performance of the 10 Kenworth Class 8 trucks being developed under this program―the first of which debuted today―is targeted to meet or exceed that of a diesel-powered truck, while producing water as the only emissions byproduct.

&mdashMike Dozier, general manager of Kenworth Truck Company and PACCAR vice president

The Port of Los Angeles, a global maritime leader with respect to zero-emission and near-zero emission technology testing and adoption, will develop the project in several phases, ultimately encompassing initiatives in Southern California, the Central Coast Area, and Merced County. The initial phase is designed to kick-start the leap to a new class of goods movement vehicles, while reducing emissions in designated disadvantaged communities.

The project phases will include:

  • Ten new zero-emissions fuel-cell-electric Kenworth/Toyota FCET developed through a collaboration between Kenworth and Toyota to move cargo from the Los Angeles and Long Beach ports throughout the Los Angeles area, the Inland Empire, the Port of Hueneme, and eventually to Merced. The trucks will be operated by Toyota Logistics Services (4), United Parcel Services (3), Total Transportation Services Inc. (2), and Southern Counties Express (1).

  • Two new large capacity heavy-duty hydrogen fueling stations will be developed by Shell in Wilmington and Ontario, California. The two new stations will join three additional stations located at Toyota’s Long Beach Logistics Services and Gardena R&D facilities to form an integrated, five-station heavy-duty hydrogen fueling network for the Los Angeles basin. Together, these stations will provide multiple sources of hydrogen throughout the region, including over 1 ton of 100% renewable hydrogen per day at the Toyota Logistics Services station to be operated by Shell, and important research and development advances at a pair of stations operated by Air Liquide, all enabling zero-emissions freight transport.

  • Expanded use of zero-emissions technology in cargo terminal and warehouse environments, including the first two zero-emissions yard tractors to be operated at the Port of Hueneme, as well as the expanded use of zero-emissions forklifts at Toyota’s port warehouse.

More than 16,000 trucks serve the Los Angeles and Long Beach port complexes—North America’s largest trade gateway for containerized cargo. That number that is estimated to grow to 32,000 by 2030. Currently, more than 43,000 drayage trucks are in operation at ports across the United States.

This announcement is an extension of Toyota’s Environmental Challenge 2050 efforts to eliminate CO2 emissions from its operations. Toyota has previously announced the construction of the Tri-Gen facility which will be the first megawatt-sized carbonate fuel cell power generation plant with hydrogen fueling in the world. The 100% renewable plant will use agricultural waste to generate water, electricity, and hydrogen that will support Toyota Logistics Services’ (TLS) operations at the Port of Long Beach.

Comments

SJC

Lots of trucks chug diesel fumes from LA to Ontario, CA.
Cleaner air would be a great benefit.

sd

"Lots of trucks chug diesel fumes from LA to Ontario, CA. "

And 10 fuel cell trucks will not make much of a difference. They would be much better off spending the money on Battery Electric delivery trucks. I think that the battery electric delivery trucks must be close to a financial break even point if they are not there already. Also Cummins offers Battery powered class 8 cabs that are good for about 100 miles with an optional small diesel for hybrid operations if 100 mile range is insufficient. With slightly better batteries, they would be capable of managing the 150 mile range that they claim is need for drayage operations. Of course, much of the drayage operations require less than 100 miles of range.

SJC

10 won't make a difference...
So why don't we just forget it?

Davemart

Some people here evidently don't know how thorough validation testing works.

Toyota and Kenilworth do.

So Toyota built a prototype, which they used in actual routes for deliveries.

That completed, they moved to this more extensive testing, with 10 or so vehicles.

This is not selling cars to private people, but tight margin businesses, where they have to be able to rely on the trucks all the time, and even Toyota! were remarking on the extreme need for reliability as well as proven costs.

Does anyone really imagine that Toyota and Kenilworth don't know how to test thoroughly and scale production appropriately?

When the validation is completed, then they can ramp at will.

Toyota is expanding fuel cell production 10 fold right now, and they can fit them to existing cabs, or Kenilworth can build new.

To criticise a test program on the basis of lack of scale shows profound misunderstanding.

HarveyD

China is planning to build the first 1,000,000 FCEVs for local national use. It should prove the effectiveness of the technology? Will massive export follow?

Lad

Toyota, along with Honda, some time ago agreed to promote hydrogen instead of BEVs. And, they have been very actively pursuing that idea...overtime, BEVs have proven to be more viable in all forms of transportation, including trucks. Yet Toyota, who has been very innovative in the past, still promotes hydrogen. Why?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7MzFfuNOtY

Davemart

@Lad

Toyota are going the hydrogen route because it has higher energy density than any battery we can do at the system level, does not need to plug in or fast charge which rapidly degrades the battery which is enormously environmentally costly, provides fuelling at comparable rates to petrol, and has better potential for cost reduction,

In short, because they know what they are doing.

They also continue to work vigorously on developing batteries which actually would do the job they are advertised for at the moment, but don't do.

electric-car-insider.com

Toyota knows what they’re doing, certainly. It’s just not necessarily in the customer’s or public policy interest, it’s in Toyota’s interest. That’s capitalism.

If Toyota has “THE” answer, why is every other truck manufacturer except Nicola producing battery electric or PHEV trucks? (Nicola, perhaps tellingly, recently announced a BEV).

Freightliner, Cummins, Peterbilt, Fuso, Mack, and dare I say Tesla in Davemart’s presence, know what they are doing too.

I think there’s a better case to be made for H2 for drayage tractors than for cars, but at $14-16 per kg, that’s a steep grade.

HarveyD

Recent up-to-date electrolysers can produce H2 for less than $3.50/Kg with lower cost e-energy from REs instead of from higher cost NG.

Excess energy from intermittent (Solar/Wind) REs and Hydro plants are very good match for H2 Electrolizers to produce much lower cost $3.50/Kg H2.

Engineer-Poet

AlzHarvey is lying again.  The cost of hydrogen from "renewables" is roughly twice as much as the cost of hydrogen from steam-reforming of natural gas.

STOP LYING, HARVEY!

gryf

Toyota are going the hydrogen route because it has higher energy density than any battery we can do at the system level
Not really. At the "system level" Gravimetric Energy Level of FCEV is less than 500 Whr/kg, Volumetric Energy Level less than 700 Whr/kg, and the Power Level maybe 400 W/kg (the last two factors are why it is not useful for aviation). The low power level is also the reason for batteries in FCEV.
The real reasons Toyota likes H2 FCEV is that they have invested $billions since 1997 and really love NiMH batteries (they hate Lithium Ion, ever notice they spend much more on other battery tech, e.g. Magnesium Ion.

gryf

Correction on Volumetric Energy Level around 400 Wh/l (for H2 tank only, reference:https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/03/f9/thomas_fcev_vs_battery_evs.pdf).

Davemart

Unsourced claims without showing the workings don't help either side.

Harvey's claim of $3.50kg for hydrogen from renewables can be found at Nikola, where they estimate their costs for it using solar arrays and their electrolysers currently being installed.

Posters may disagree with that claim, but it is not lying, at any rate by Harvey, and some degree of civility might help their own ideas to be listened to with more respect.

Gryf, you are chopping and changing from density per kg to volumetric, all without enough detail to follow your calculations.

The MIrai and Nexo are pretty heavy, but the weight ratio of fuel cell systems gets better with larger vehicles.
See for instance the Nikola site again, where they are specifying batteries for short range and fuel cells for longer range.

That is also why they are specified in trains, and in ferries and the cruise ship design.

It is unclear where the optimum trade off point is, but AFAIK there is no question but that at least for larger vehicles fuel cell systems are more favourable for weight than battery only systems.

Volumetrically may be a different matter.

gryf

My post was a correction. Read the reference (though it is based on 2009 Fuel Cell tech this is still valid since it is the graphite composite high pressure tanks which drive energy density, both gravimetric and volumetric).
The reference states 550 Wh/kg gravimetric and 400 Wh/L volumetric. They do not include the energy density of the battery which would make these numbers lower.
The Toyota Mirai has a Prius NiMH battery and the Toyota/Kenworth truck has a 12 kWh Lithium Ion battery and 50 kg of hydrogen.
Larger vehicles are more favorable for fuel cells because they have a larger volume. This still does not help the H2 infrastructure (note: the Port of LA will only need a five-station heavy-duty hydrogen fueling network at 3 locations for the Los Angeles basin) or does it eliminate the high cost of "green H2".

Davemart

gryf:

I can't work out what you are seeking to argue.
You say:
' At the "system level" Gravimetric Energy Level of FCEV is less than 500 Whr/kg, Volumetric Energy Level less than 700 Whr/kg, and the Power Level maybe 400 W/kg (the last two factors are why it is not useful for aviation).'

Wh/kg is not a volumetric measurement, but specific energy density.
You then talk about power densities, which is another subject.

The measure where I was arguing, so far as I know wholly uncontroversially, is that the specific energy of fuel cell vehicles for larger vehicles is higher than for batteries, even including the ancillaries and importantly the carbon fibre tank holding the hydrogen and the associated battery needed to provide extra power and the power as opposed to energy density of the fuel cell part of the system is not high and more importantly does not like ramping up and down.

The Mirai and the Nexo are both pretty heavy, but if you want incremental range then most of the system stays the same, with only the hydrogen and its CF tank increasing.

So the question of how the relative density compared to batteries is indeterminate as it depends how far you need to go and how big the vehicle is.

In practical terms this can be seen on the Nikola website, where the same vehicle can be had either with a pure battery for short range or fuel cells.

The fuel cell version has greater range and a weight advantage.

gryf

Davemart:
Wh/kg is not a volumetric measurement
For the last time I CORRECTED THAT measurement BEFORE you mentioned it.
As I stated: "The reference states 550 Wh/kg gravimetric and 400 Wh/L volumetric."

The Nikola Truck uses a Fuel Cell Range Extender with a 300 kWh battery. The 2017 Lithium Ion has an energy density of around 170 Wh/kg (for the battery, not the cell).
YES IN 2019 FCEV have a higher energy density than current Lithium Ion battery technology. 170Wh/kg is less than 550 Wh/kg. It just not TEN times higher and in a few years batteries may be a lot closer (and Hydrogen will still not be cheap).

Davemart

gryf

If you can't write clearly then it is hardly my fault'

Originally I said and you replied:

"'Toyota are going the hydrogen route because it has higher energy density than any battery we can do at the system level'
Not really."

You now say:
' YES IN 2019 FCEV have a higher energy density than current Lithium Ion battery technology. 170Wh/kg is less than 550 Wh/kg.'

So what is 'not really' about that?

You then go on to say:
' It just not TEN times higher'

Who the heck said it was?
You are creating straw man arguments.

Finally you waffle on about the inevitable march of progress in battery energy density, which will be lovely if and when it happens and sensible people will re-evaluate then, not now when it is pie in the sky, and finally make unsupported suppositions about the cost of hydrogen in the future.

Neither your reasoning nor your exposition of it is very clear.
In fact it is muddled and coloured by what you hope will come to pass.

For heavy transport hydrogen has significant advantages and very low emissions, which is why the Chinese for instance are re-balancing to make considerable use of it in that field.

Engineer-Poet
Harvey's claim of $3.50kg for hydrogen from renewables can be found at Nikola

Repeating marketing hype while concealing the source IS lying.  It's propaganda.  Right now, H2 is currently being delivered at around $14.00/kg in California.  $3.50 is 1/4 of this.  Is there any possibility that the existing providers have ignored factors which bumped their costs up by a factor of 4?  It is risible.

they estimate their costs for it using solar arrays and their electrolysers currently being installed.

The EIA may be inaccurate, but they're not an interested party (NREL is).  The EIA finds that wind and solar costs in 2021-23 are going to be $50/MWh for wind and $60/MWh for solar (page 5, Figure 2)... and practically ALL "renewables" are going to have LACE (levelized avoided cost of energy) less than their actual cost, meaning total cost goes UP.  Who pays the difference?  The consumer or taxpayer gets stuck with it.

At 50 kWh/kg, PV power at $0.06/kWh gives you an electric cost of $3.00/kg for electrolytic H2.  Compression costs on the order of $2.00/kg.  Amortization and O&M on the electrolyzer is on top of that.  If you can scrape costs down to a bare minimum you are talking maybe $7/kg, and that is before the motor fuel taxes that everyone else has to pay.  Figure $9-$10/kg all inclusive.

$9/kg in a vehicle achieving 72 mi/kg is $0.125/mi.  This isn't bad, but it's way above the cost of feeding a Prius even on $5.00/gallon gasoline.  A PEV that uses 300 Wh/mi charging on $0.21/kWh electricity costs $0.07/mi.  Hypedrogen is a solution looking for a problem.

Davemart

EP

Redefining lies as someone having a different opinion to your and a different evaluation of sources is absurd

Hydrogen is being used right now in bus stations at around $4.50 kg or so:

'He said the new hydrogen buses will allow SARTA to take out of service at least five buses that are over 500,000 miles and are in need of replacement.

As for the approximately $1.9 million hydrogen pumping station at SARTA’s Gateway headquarters in southeast Canton headquarters, it’s operational, said Conrad. A 9,000-gallon tank holds liquid hydrogen at extremely cold temperatures. A vaporizer converts the liquid hydrogen into gas where it’s stored in underground tanks and then it’s pumped into the hydrogen buses with fuel dispensers. The pumping station can support up to 20 vehicles. A bus can hold 50 kilograms of gas. The hydrogen is shipped from Air Products’ hydrogen plant in Ontario.

A kilogram of hydrogen gas, which now costs about $4.50, is roughly equal to a gallon, said Conrad. A hydrogen gas bus gets about eight to nine miles out of about a kilogram of hydrogen gas while a regular diesel bus gets about four miles to the gallon.'

http://omniproservices.com/omniweb/sarta-hydrogen-station/

So does that mean that you were lying about the cost of hydrogen?
Or are there differences due to different sources etc?

Of course not, but you fail to understand the reasons for the high costs you quote.
They are largely determined by the low volume of the initial roll out for cars.

The bus station uses higher volumes, and so can be set up more economically, transporting it about costs less and so on.

That high volume is akin to its use for trucks, not for cars which you quote.

So Harvey is more nearly right than you, and if anyone is lying, that would be you.

gryf

You did point out that the SARTA Hydrogen station has Hydrogen produced by Air Products using steam reforming in Canada (at very low cost Natural Gas prices) and
liquefied and trucked down to Canton and delivered at $4.50/kg.

Engineer-Poet
Redefining lies as someone having a different opinion to your and a different evaluation of sources is absurd

Refusing to cite sources while pushing propagandist positions IS lying.

Hydrogen is being used right now in bus stations at around $4.50 kg or so:

'He said the new hydrogen buses will allow SARTA to take out of service at least five buses that are over 500,000 miles and are in need of replacement.

I went looking for that.  The Air Products plant in Ontario, OH is so un-newsworthy that nothing I can find bothers to mention it, let alone list where it gets its hydrogen.  Almost certainly, it is made from Pennsylvania (Marcellus) shale NG by steam methane reforming.  Wellhead NG prices in the Marcellus shale barely broke $5/mmBTU during the 2017-18 winter cold snap.  1 kg of H2 is 119.9 MJ or 113.7 kBTU.  1 mmBTU is thus 8.78 GGE; turning less than 50¢ worth of NG into $4.50 of H2 looks like a pretty good scheme, or should I say scam?

So does that mean that you were lying about the cost of hydrogen?

I cite my sources, unlike AlzHarvey the propagandist.

Or are there differences due to different sources etc?

He claims RENEWABLE hydrogen, without citing sources for his costs.  He is a LIAR.

you fail to understand the reasons for the high costs you quote.

Wrong.  I dig up the costs that AlzHarvey tries to hide.  He is a liar.

The bus station uses higher volumes, and so can be set up more economically

Why would LDVs be unable to use the same supply as the bus station and share the cost savings?

This is a question you are not supposed to ask.  It's part of the LIE.  Stop accepting the lie, start asking questions.

Davemart

The Nikola hydrogen stations are to have light vehicle hydrogen pumps installed also.

That, from memory is also to be done in the Chinese roll out of hydrogen stations for heavy transport.

What do you imagine is so difficult about installing a light vehicle pump if you have a nearby supply of hydrogen?

You are an ill mannered and abusive person, with a grossly inflated notion of your intellect.

Good day to you, I will leave you to your own company.

Davemart

I'll just add that aside from the triviality of installing a light vehicle fuel pump where there is already a hydrogen supply for heavy duty vehicles, the lower costs of the supply for the heavy duty is clearly associated with relatively high volumes.

So the point which should be obvious to the meanest intellect is that a great deal of the high price of hydrogen at the pumps for light vehicles is due to their not being many on the road.

As volume increases, prices will tend to drop.

Who could possibly have predicted that?

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)