The rapid expansion of green hydrogen production is has already driven production costs to well below half what they were, on a trajectory to match the retail price of gasoline and diesel fuel by 2040.

First undertaken to support fuel cells and the hydrogen economy, this also foretells a revival of the internal combustion engine, currently threatened by decarbonization.

H2 ICE have some NOx issues, but relatively easy to solve in an exhaust stream with no carbon compounds. Thermal efficiency is half a fuel cell, but capital costs are so much lower that for many end users, this will be more than “good enough.”

A fly in the ointment is the hot edges of the exhaust values in a conventional engine can lead to pre-ignition issues, especially under high loads. This is resolved in engine types where the inlet and exhaust ports are far apart, like in Wankel and Opposed-Piston types.

Expect more developments on this subject.

@Ski:

I am a bit surprised, on reflection, by your statement:

' Thermal efficiency is half a fuel cell, but capital costs are so much lower that for many end users,'

Here is a statement supposedly sourced from Cummins, who have both so have no axe to grind:

' Internal combustion engines tend to be most efficient under high load, which is to say, when they work harder. fuel cell electric vehicles, in contrast, are most efficient at lower loads.

For heavy trucks that tend to spend most of their time hauling the biggest load they can pull, internal combustion engines are usually the ideal and efficient choice. On the other hand, vehicles that frequently operate without any load, tow trucks or concrete agitators, tippers and tankers, they may be more efficient with a fuel cell.

Fuel cell electric vehicles can also capture energy through regenerative braking in very variable duty cycles, improving their overall efficiency.'

https://powertorque.com.au/hydrogen-combustion-versus-hydrogen-fuel-cell/

The small version of this could be a good range extender you've got low sulfur diesel at gas stations to get plenty of miles out of every gallon with a plug hybrid. The hydrogen availability is always going to be one of those issues, it works okay at airports and truck fueling yards and so on but we have to be practical about where are you getting the fuel energy.

Hi SJC

By far the biggest, and I do mean by far, market in the world for long distance heavy trucking is China.

They are to build 1200 hydrogen filling stations around the country for heavy trucking in the next couple of years.

Infrastructure projects in China including renewables installation and high speed rail normally happen, although they are typically a bit messy round the edges, with poor capacity utilisation etc.

But effectively they are likely to demonstrate the tech, and iron out or at least highlight any issues.

There are also very substantial projects underway almost everywhere in Europe, with France, Germany and the low countries amongst others in the process of installing such a network.

Hi Bernard:

What is likely to go in, at least in Europe, is Daimler's sLH2 tech, which has no such limits:

https://www.greencarcongress.com/2024/02/20240208-slh2.html

Since the tech seems to be rapidly improving, I am not going to check back for my references, but AFAIK other installers of hydrogen stations for trucks, as opposed to cars, are also well aware of the limits which early stations designed for infrequent cars had, and have upped their game too.

Continued from above: Alternatively, the H2 can be mixed with the air at the intake manifold, and thus only a small amount of DME can be directly injected at near the end of compression stroke to initiate the combustion. In this way, liquid H2 (LH2) at low pressures can be used without requiring complicated high-pressure fuel pump, which can be difficult to generate high-pressure LH2 with mechanical pump.
Seems like a promising way to very efficiently utilize H2 at the efficiency of Fuel Cell, without the high cost of Fuel Cell.

Hydrogen needs spark ignition due to much higher auto-ignition temperature of Hydrogen at 550 dgr C, vs diesel fuel at 250 dgr C, and a little lower compression ratio, hence less efficient as would compression-ignition like in a diesel. To burn Hydrogen in a diesel engine would require injection of small quantity of either diesel fuel or DME to start the ignition, then the Hydrogen will burn after the initial ignition start by the DME.

Good to see that you have not lost your sense of humor, Davemart. I actually appreciate that you and a few others here are willing to take on unpopular positions (unpopular using the measure of market share, if that is a fair way to cast it). It seems the comment section would be nearly vacant otherwise.

I agree that electric charging of the volumes of semi’s that flow through a busy Flying J or Pilot diesel station is going to be a daunting task.

But consider the case for H2 resupply: where a refueling depot requires one tanker of diesel to service a given volume of trucks, it will require 16 tube truck deliveries of hydrogen. Even if that were converted to electrons for BEVs, it would be an impressive logistics feat to maintain the supply.

That is before even mentioning the cost of the fuel.

@eci

You do not source your figures, and consequently are not explicit about nor do you apparently examine let alone justify the assumptions underlying them.

I have no idea where you get your 16 times lower capacity for a hydrogen tanker from, as you do not say,

That is in the right ballpark for gaseous delivery, but according to the DOE it is around 14 times less, not your 16:

https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/articles/hydrogen-delivery-roadmap

They then go on to say:

' . The liquid pathway is more economical than gaseous trucking for high market demands (greater than 300 kg/day) because a liquid tanker truck with a capacity of approximately 4,000 kg can transport more than 10 times the capacity of a typical steel gaseous tube trailer.'

ie in the ballpark of a diesel trailer.

The typical objection made is about energy efficiency.
Since renewables are rapidly falling in cost, that element is fair game to be traded off.

In addition pipeline delivery of hydrogen either in dedicated pipes or blended in natural gas is going to be an important factor going forward, in both Europe and China as both are in the process of building out networks

And where renewables are conveniently available, another possible pathway is simply to make the hydrogen where it is needed.

Analysis depends on making assumption etc explicit.

Your contention that I am some sort of outlier is, I would argue, the exact reverse of opinion within the trucking industry, which almost universally is going for hydrogen for long distance heavy trucking, which you simply dismiss as not worth considering, and with it the overwhelming bull of expert opinion on the subject.

A contrarian position is fine, but the assumption that an overwhelming consensus of expert opinion is not worth considering is to put it mildly odd in someone who attempts informed 'inside' opinion on the industry.

It is perfectly practical anywhere which is reasonably uncrowded to generate hydrogen on site or nearly enough so that investment in transformers is not needed with a fairly compact solar or wind array.

So for instance to truck across the US with the possible exception of the coastal regions a zero emission local solution is to hand.

So there would be zero trucks.

That is way more difficult for BEV solutions, as the array needed to provide for peak usage would be massive.

In fairness since I am picky with other people I should point out that the obvious hassle is cost, and large reductions are needed in the cost of green hydrogen.

It appears though that that is well in hand.

Mercedes just recently achieved a memorable 40-ton transport across the Alps with a battery powered truck. The total capacity of the battery pack consisted of three 200kWh LFP batteries totaling 600 kWh. There is no mentioning of the energy density of the cells but I assume that they must have been i. a. w. the SOA around 150 Wh / Ltr.
https://electrek.co/2023/10/05/a-40-ton-mercedes-benz-e-truck-just-drove-1000-km-with-only-one-stop-to-charge/
The Faradion Na-ion chemistry can now exceed the energy densities of LiFePO4//graphite Li-ion batteries with rapidly converging cycle lives, similar rate performance and charge acceptance. Faradion's newest lab achievement reached 230 wh / kg; that is almost double of what Mercedes' LFP battery managed. Additionally, this battery can be discharged to 0-V without suffering any damage. With such technical advances, who needs a questionable H2 technology?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4y0MMjfLqP4&ab_channel=SmartEnergyLab

I suspect the quickest way to significantly reduce CO2 emissions from long haul trucks would be to use LNG fuel. It could be adopted quickly, since it would immediately save fuel cost for the truckers.
But political insistance on zero emissions is likely making adoption of LNG risky because it could be outlawed too soon.
This is making perfect the enemy of the good.

@Davemart: I am counting trucks on dealer lots, or in fleets, not press releases. I don’t mean that comment to be flippant, just deadpan factual.

I don’t follow markets outside of North America, this continent is big enough to keep me busy, so there may exist cheap, plentiful liquid hydrogen at retail elsewhere.

Here in California, which is practically speaking, the only place selling H2, it is crazy expensive and the stations are out of service about 50% of the time. These are simply the unvarnished on the ground facts.

At any time that H2 competes economically with actual on the road commercial BEV vehicles (or for that matter, light duty vehicles) I’ll take interest.

But out here on the frontier, the vehicles and infrastructure is vastly outnumbered by BEVs. I’ll leave it to readers of GCC to catch the numbers, which are regularly reported here.