Well, sd, it would appear that they are proven operationally to have enough power for the intended application, something which you were doubtful of.

It is perhaps another question whether the power is enough to meet the tastes of the drivers, as talking for instance to some using battery electric trucks for Ikea deliveries here in the UK the drivers are not keen on the their limitations for motorway driving.

It will be interesting to see what the drivers say, if they are interviewed.

I will keep an eye out for that.

Here is driving the Toyota/Kenworth FCEV truck:

https://www.constructionequipment.com/trucking/article/10759687/behind-the-wheel-of-kenworths-zevs

Note that the top speed is limited to 70mph, way below the 90(?) mph sd gives as typical truck speeds in the US, although higher than the 65mph of the BEV trucks tested here.
Certainly fine or Europe, in any case.

@peskanov

Here are some estimated purchase costs for BEV and FCEV trucks in 2025:

https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/purchase-cost-ze-trucks-feb22-1.pdf

Unfortunately for early stage technology like FC trucks, the error bars will tend to be bigger than the cost estimates ! ;-)

The figures for BEVs with a more mature tech should be more solid.

Hi peskanov:

Perhaps I can shed a bit of light on it from a cost and works perspective, as I was one of the guys who would have turned out figures for this sort of thing, although I was only a at a low level fresh from school.

It is really down to difficulties estimating costs in any early stage technology prior to mass production, not specific or peculiar to hydrogen and fuel cells.

So for instance if anything happens, say a war in Europe, pushing up prices for diesel, then a hydrogen alternative becomes more attractive.

Not only does that increase demand for hydrogen, so enabling more demand for, for instance, electrolysers, but that increased demand really pushes the costs down very rapidly for early stage projects.

That is why the likes of Tesla engaged in such massive boosterism, to get critical mass to drive costs down for batteries.

That is what is happening right now to electrolyser costs, with new factories of many times previously built capacity being ordered in loads of places.

That then drives down hydrogen costs, which in turn enables the possibility of far higher volume for fuel cells.

So you could have a reasonable cost projection of, say, $800,000 for a fuel cell truck based on an expectation that you will only be producing a few hundred a year, and another equally reasonable projection of half the cost, based on an expectation of several thousand a year.

So strangely costs are rather more solid further out, when we can narrow the options substantially for cost ranges for, for instance, hydrogen, and also and partly in consequence for fuel cell vehicles,

Hi sd:

Apologies for any misrepresentation of your position, which was inadvertent, hence for instance my inclusion of a (?) against the 90mph, as I could not recall the precise figure you gave.

I always find your comments and take interesting and informed, even when we are not in agreement, and assure you of my utmost respect, although of course I will continue to argue my views until convinced otherwise.

As for whether batteries alone can do the job, the only folk in the heavy freight industry who agree with you are Tesla, who are not currently in it, and the VW group, sort of.

In fact their subsidiary Tratton is the only one with funds enough to go the fuel cell route if they wished to, with Mann strapped for cash.

And interestingly, dissent seems to be breaking out even in the laager of VW:

https://ceetransport.com/skoda-group-returns-to-hydrogen-mobility-shows-fuel-cell-bus-1927/

So Skoda has crossed the party line, and resumed development of fuel cell trucks for long distance.

My own view is that a lot of the exagerated claims for what batteries can do was and is a political move, to claim the moon to attract subsidies and other incentives.

And VW have had an awful time in their push for batteries everywhere.

From level pegging with the Toyota group in sales, important to a mass manufacturer, they are now down a couple of million cars a year.

Toyota have stuck to what batteries can really currently do at reasonable cost.

VW have gone the fantastical Musk route.

As I note elsewhere there is currently not the slightest sign that anything like current lithium ion batteries can be competitive for other than premium cars, not the first family cars in modest income countries which is where the massive expansion in demand will come, let alone in long distance heavy trucking.

India is not going for lithium ion batteries, and is looking to other chemistries and hydrogen for general transport, not just heavy trucking.

And electrolysis from renewables works just fine, with falling electrolyser costs meaning that as long as they are run for 2000 hours or more a year, they can be economic.

' In the past, high electrolyser costs have made it important to run electrolysers at high capacity in order to reduce capital costs per unit of production, which implied reliance on more expensive electricity from the grid. But as electrolysers capital
costs fall drastically, high utilisation will no longer be crucial. As Exhibit 2.3 shows, once electrolyser costs fall below $300/kW, electricity cost becomes the almost sole driver of green production costs as long as utilisation rates are above around 2000 hours per annum' pg 54

https://www.energy-transitions.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/ETC-Global-Hydrogen-Report.pdf

That is slightly a projection, but not by much, and may have changed for the better in view of the recent massive rise in conventional energy costs.

Topsoe Haldor's soec can hit 90% efficiency in conversion to hydrogen, although I do not seek to claim that they are anywhere near $300KW

Hi peskanov

Good questions, all.

Here is some of the stuff I have.

Hyzon reckon on stack lifetimes:

' Hirano: The expected lifetime for fuel cells is about 20,000 hours for a less aggressive usage profile such as steady-state operation, but fuel cell life is highly dependent on the operational profile. Hyzon is working to achieve a lifetime of 20,000 hours under a more realistic operation profile. It is difficult to make an apples-to-apples comparison with battery life, as these are measured in number of charging cycles.'

https://www.hyzonmotors.com/in-the-news/state-of-competition-between-hydrogen-fuel-cells-and-batteries-in-the-heavy-duty-truck-market

As they mention, there are many promising avenues to increase durability, perhaps more so than batteries, but your very valid question relates to where we are right now.

The figures Hirano give can be cross substantiated by, for instance, the far more extensive experience in the use of fuel cells for buses, which of course have a different although related profile, and also recent work on marine fuel cells.

It is pretty clear that they are credible, and in the ball park,

We could really do with pushing that to 30,000 hours.

@peskanov

I am not sure why you should regard Toyota using NiMH batteries where they are suitable and cost effective as well as lithium ion where they are more suitable as an obsession.

Surely it is more appropriate to regard a monofocus on lithium ion whilst excluding 'from first principles' alternatives such as NiMH as an obsession?

Proclaiming the one and only true solution is pretty much the definition of obsession?

@peskanov

I am confused as to why you should imagine that Toyota deciding to continue to use a NiMH battery in the utterly different duty cycle of a hybrid as opposed to a plug in hybrid let alone a BEV is a result of 'obsession'

They are around 1.5KWh not the many KWh of the other batteries, cycle way more frequently and need great cycle life under those conditions.

They have performed superbly in their couple of decades of use, and some time ago Toyota said that they were around 10% cheaper than lithium alternatives.

How do you manage to arrive at the conclusion that their use is an 'obsession' for Toyota?

Cheaper and proven to do the very different job to a PHEV or BEV seems an adequate rationale.

How do you conclude that it is the result of 'obsession?'