Sumitomo investing in Lousiana Green Fuels project; shift to SAF
Brookhaven researchers boost plant oil content by engineering protein that protects new oil droplets

Hyzon and New Way Trucks to develop hydrogen fuel cell refuse truck

Hyzon Motors Inc. and privately held New Way Trucks announced a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) to develop a fuel cell powered refuse vehicle for the North American market. Hyzon and New Way plan to start the advanced phases of truck development, with the initial base FCEV prototype ready for refuse collection equipment integration.

Hyzon will be responsible for the supply and integration of its advanced fuel cell technology and integrated powertrain, while New Way will be responsible for the supply and integration of the prototype’s Sidewinder XTR automated side-load refuse body, thereby combining both companies’ expertise to develop a sustainable refuse collection solution.


Sidewinder XTR

The development process is expected to leverage Hyzon’s real-world experience developing, assembling and deploying a hydrogen fuel cell refuse truck in operation since October 2023 in Australia with REMONDIS Australia, the Australian operation of one of the world’s largest recycling, service and water companies.

Across North America, Hyzon estimates that about 120,000 refuse trucks are currently operational, consuming a total of more than 953 million gallons of diesel fuel annually. The integration of FCEVs into refuse collection fleets in North America provides an opportunity to help decarbonize the industry and reduce noise pollution from diesel trucks. Hyzon expects fuel cell powered refuse trucks to deliver performance levels on par with both diesel and natural gas trucks.

Initial customer trials for the parties’ first North American prototype truck are planned to begin in the first half of 2024 with a mix of public and private refuse fleets. Additionally, Hyzon is targeting initial commercial vehicle deliveries in 2025 on the back of potential successful trials.

Upon trial deployment, the trucks are expected to achieve up to a 125 mile driving range, 1,200 refuse cart lifts per route, an unladen weight significantly lighter than an equivalent battery electric truck, and a refueling time of 15 minutes based on performance observed to date in the REMONDIS trial.

New Way Trucks is the largest privately held refuse equipment manufacturer in North America. With the broadest lineup of all US manufacturers, New Way’s product line features six rear-load, three automated side-load (including the industry-leading Sidewinder XTR, auger driven ROTO PAC, and under CDL capable Wolverine), and two front-load models ranging in size from six to 43 cubic yards.



Apart from weight considerations, the reason why refuse trucks are a popular option for hydrogen is the duty cycle.

Basically you can't afford the time to recharge.

And fuel cells as opposed to hydrogen ICE because most of the time unlike a truck they are operating at light load, against the constant high load of trucking.

Batteries supply the extra oomph when needed.


I'm not sure duty cycle is a factor. I don't know about other jurisdictions, but city refuse truck only operate during "school hours" where I live.
One would assume that the same battery solution already in use for local and regional trucking would work.

My first thought is that the refuse truck market is relatively small/specialized, and less price-sensitive. Electric has been the overwhelming choice of regional distribution, Amazon, UPS, and other ultra-competitive sectors, but you stand a better chance of convincing a municipality to take a gamble on hydrogen. Not that this is a bad thing, government procurement shouldn't be all about quarterly profits.



I am obviously not going to be familiar with the local regulations in various districts in the US.

But here is why they are the choice in some places, in this instance Glasgow:

' The objective of the research was to find the best business cases for the heavy-duty hydrogen fuel cell power trains that Ballard Motive Solutions were developing. The study found that refuse collection was one of the best immediate business cases for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, as they use a lot of energy, work long shifts and return to a single depot where they can be quickly and conveniently refuelled.'


' One of the biggest challenges around the adoption of hydrogen vehicles is that they can be more expensive to trial than battery electric, as a hydrogen refuelling solution is required. However, the next step of moving from trial to a full fleet roll out of hydrogen is much easier to scale up, because once a refuelling system is in place, it is simpler to get a greater volume of hydrogen delivered.

“You can do one or two vehicles really easily with battery electric,” says Kemp-Harper. “But once you get up to 50 or 100, it’s a lot of energy. Suddenly you’re looking at infrastructure upgrades.”

For hydrogen, the minimum number is 20 vehicles to justify a refueler. Once that infrastructure is in place, not only can you quickly and easily increase your hydrogen-powered fleet, but it can then also be used to fuel other heavy-duty fleets such as long-distance HGVs, construction and farm machinery.”'


OK, so in Glasgow's case, they have a single yard where they park all of their trucks, which implies a long journey to get to that day's routes, another long journey to get to the landfill site, and then a third long journey to get back to the yard. The actual work of picking-up garbage is a small part of their energy needs. It's a long-haul route, with a break in the middle where they meander through local neighbourhoods.

I'm sure it makes sense for their needs, but it sure seems like their primary purpose isn't where their money goes.

In my region, there are multiple yards, which implies building dozens of hydrogen refueling stations. Loads are consolidated and trucked to landfill and recycling facilities using dedicated equipment. Trucks that are designed for low-speed local routes aren't sent on long journeys.

The obvious question is: do they want to replace their current system with the same thing, plus "powered by hydrogen" stickers, or would they be better-off rethinking? It's always easier to get local authorities to accept "more of the same," so that's a strong incentive for business-as-usual.


I like trash trucks that run on landfill gas.



It seems you are committed to the notion that there is one perfect solution, known to you, but not to the experts in the field, and not subject to any qualification or conditions depending on local circumstances.

Weirdly, the engineers in charge of speccing equipment seem to have rather less fixed notions than yourself.

Why don't you simply say: 'Batteries good. Nothing else is worth considering.'


' In Glasgow's case, they have a single yard where they park all of their trucks, which implies a long journey to get to that day's routes,'

Not too familiar with the geography of Glasgow, are you?

Makes no difference though, as nothing at all is going to change your predetermined conclusions.


If it sounds as though I am wilfully dismissing others opinions, apologies.

For myself, I always try to have a reasonably clear idea of what would falsify, or at least alter, my opion, so for instance in recent debates about eSAF my sticking point is where the fuel is to come from, as the projected sources do not seem credible to me.
But that position is falsifiable, which is important.

Otherwise we are too tempted to indulge in confirmation bias, where stuff is simply rejected out of hand, with any pretext serving.

That is human nature, and I have been guilty more times than I can count!

But being reasonably clear on what the boundaries of our current position are at least reduces the issue.

For instance I have flip-flopped on DAC, first not fancying it, then becoming interested, which unfortunately evolved as I found out more to thinking it literally incredible, in any economic sense and by other than biological means.

I prefer to flip-flop as new data comes in rather than rigidly sticking to a predetermined fixed position, regardless of what new data comes to light.




Oh please! It seems you haven't read what I wrote, or even your own links. Just because someone points-out things that are in your sources doesn't mean that they have "fixed notions!" It may well be the opposite, since I mentioned that a hydrogen solution makes (slightly) more sense if they are keen to continue with their current system (single storage yard, single primary landfill, long distances driven by neighbourhood bin trucks).

I did mention that their current system might not be optimal, or even common to cities of similar size and geography. "We've always done it this way!" isn't always the right answer, as you should know. That's how we got into this mess in the first place... Cities, regions, and countries can learn from each other, even in these times of reduced travel budgets.

Perhaps you are confusing me with a different Bernard, again?


Hi Bernard:

I probably did confuse you with other less sensible posters, due to your:

' OK, so in Glasgow's case, they have a single yard where they park all of their trucks, which implies a long journey to get to that day's routes, another long journey to get to the landfill site, and then a third long journey to get back to the yard'

'Greater Glasgow ; Area, 265 km2 (102 sq mi) ; Population, 1,028,220 (2020)'

IOW, it ain't far from a reasonably central area in Glasgow to the outskirts, just like most European cities, which is a very different situation to US cities,

Dunno if they will use the same truck to the tip, or drop off at the depot for a bigger truck to take the waste from several there,

From my own UK urban conurbation of Bristol, UK, which with surroundings is fairly comparble, to and from the depot or waste site is not really a major hassle, it is negotiating the urban conurbation for the individual pick ups.

Completely different logistics in US towns with their extensive suburbs.

The comments to this entry are closed.