More evidence of genius from the VW group.

After years of pushing batteries as the one and only true solution, during which from level pegging with Toyota as a mass producer of cars they are now a couple of million cars a year lower than them, and years of 'dissent will not be tolerated' uni focus on batteries for all brands within the group and applications including long distance heavy trucking, they have now arrived at the same conclusion everyone else within the industry knew years ago, that you need hydrogen for long distances and heavy loads.

Of course they have only managed to arrive at the potential solution with less headroom, using hydrogen in an ICE instead of a fuel cell, when everyone else are exploiting both, but we can be sure that with anything like present batteries if MAN had been able to make long distance heavy work, they would have done.

None of that is to say that for lighter loads and distances you don't use batteries, of course you do.

But the focus should always be on what works with more or less current technology, not a monomaniacal attachment to one solution in all circumstances.

But we can expect nothing less from the people who brought us 'clean diesel' years ago.

They have not changed.

When green hydrogen finally arrives it must be used to replace the 120 million tons of dirty hydrogen used in fertilizer manufacturing. Any other use is insane.

@Bernard Harper:

We do not have a central directorship choosing what green hydrogen is used for.
The problem is cost, and as and when costs drop, then it will be distributed according to cost effectiveness as well as central direction or incentives.

Fertiliser is a rather different matter not directly related to green hydrogen, although to be sure green hydrogen can be used in its production.

There are though a number of other budding technologies for ammonia and fertiliser production, not directly related to green hydrogen production, some of which can take place actually on the farm, not centrally, for instance:

https://lowercarboncapital.com/company/nitricity/

I am not guaranteeing that this and other allied technologies will pan out at volume, but it is certainly not a zero sum game, whereby a fixed amount of green hydrogen is allocated either to fertiliser production or other uses.

What counts is how much green hydrogen costs can be reduced, allocation is an altogether different matter, not to be determined by some derigiste means.

If it is cheap enough it will find all sorts of uses,
If it ain't, it won't.

@Bernard:

No assumptions necessary.

The VW group chose the direction of all batteries, and their divisions including heavy trucking, both Scania and Mann fell into line.

Otherwise how come they have been the only major truck producers to stand consistently against hydrogen for years?

You also think, as far as I am aware, that batteries can do the job, and all of the job, so why you critique the VW group for their stance is mysterious.

It is however an objective fact that the VW group's 'progressive' adhesion to all batteries and the direction of the company has led to them substantially lagging bad of Toyota's reactionary desire to sell customers what they can afford with varying degrees of electrification.

What spin you want to put on it is up to you, but sales of the group as a whole have dropped, and it is difficult to see how the Mann group's switch and very belated move to hydrogen can represent other than an admission of failure.

Maybe better late than never, but they have hardly done so because what they were previously trying was a resounding success.

They screwed up, and are now trying to catch up, not with any great degree of credibility.

@Bernard:

Yep, my comments here are out of date with first Scania and now Mann having to belatedly switch to hydrogen, as they found that batteries could not do everything, after years of the VW group including both of them claiming they could:

https://www.rechargenews.com/energy-transition/after-plotting-battery-electric-future-truck-maker-scania-hedges-bets-with-new-hydrogen-vehicles/2-1-1200800

' The Volkswagen-owned company last year issued statement dismissive of H2's future role in long-distance transport, but says it is now building 'an initial 20 fuel-cell trucks''

(Post 11th April 2022)

There is no doubt joy in heaven, but I am somewhat surprised that you appear to share it, as my understanding is that you are among those who regard hydrogen as a waste of time in all circumstances and for all applications?

@eci,

I concur: Cost per mile, Cost per mile, Cost per mile.

There is no way hydrogen is going to win the cost per mile battle unless someone finds a free source of hydrogen and even then it is a pain to deal with.

I also concur with Bernard. If you have green hydrogen, use to replace the natural gas (or even worse coal) generated hydrogen used for fertilizer and other industrial uses.

@sd:

It is lifetime costs, not exclusively cost per mile.

First is depreciation, where purchase cost is important, and is the reason why whenever it is practical batteries have been deployed.

However fuel cells and hydrogen technologies are at a much earlier point on the cost curve, and although volume cost reductions have not even begun to kick in yet, have declined at a much greater rate than for batteries, which trend is set to continue.

Next is fuel costs, which are important, as you say. However, present costs for low volume, retail delivery in California should not be taken as indicative of future costs, with for instance the Chinese now reckoning that they are on track to deliver both hydrogen and fuel cell trucks competitively against petrol by 2030:

https://www.spglobal.com/commodityinsights/en/market-insights/latest-news/energy-transition/110921-chinas-hydrogen-fuel-price-to-be-competitive-against-petroleum-by-2030-sinopec-marketing.

And already:

https://www.hydrogeninsight.com/transport/chinas-largest-green-hydrogen-refuelling-station-is-selling-h2-at-a-seventh-of-the-cost-of-the-fuel-in-california/2-1-1613409

' The largest integrated green hydrogen production and refuelling complex in China is able to supply hydrogen at 35 yuan per kilo ($4.86/kg), near cost parity with diesel, according to reporting by the Chinese newspaper Hunan Daily.'

That is not to say that fuel costs are as cheap as electric, where that is available to cover the day's business without a recharge.

Batteries for that, no question. It is where that is not practical to cover the run that hydrogen comes in.

I will leave labour costs largely aside, as it should be similar for both.

On maintenance the track record of fuel cells is excellent, which is one of the reasons why reliance on ICE technology, including MAN's hydrogen ICE, is likely to be a relatively short term strategy.

I would agree that where batteries can do the job without having to fool around too much recharging during the day's run, and where the times you need to recharge coincide with when renewable or nuclear power is available it is the best choice, which is why every truck company without exception is doing that.

What is at issue is when that does not work, for long runs and heavy loads.

MAN finally changing direction, to follow Scania, is another indication of the failure to cover that with batteries.

If they could have, they would have.

@Bernard:

Presumably you have missed my:

' "my understanding is that you are among those who regard hydrogen as a waste of time in all circumstances and for all applications?"'

Even though you directly quoted it in your reply:

' What complete and utter BS!'

Clearly if that is not the case, and my understanding was mistaken, perhaps referring to another Bernard posting here or whatever, then my comment does not apply to you, nor is it necessary to categorise my own comment in injurious tones.

It appears in fact that we are on the same page, as I have never advocated the use of hydrogen incurring losses where it is reasonable and economic, and where the renewable energy is available when wanted, via batteries etc

Cool down.

@Bernard:

Why you should take offence to a critique of a position which is not your own remains mysterious to me.

Would not: 'Not me. Gov!' have sufficed?

Since we are in agreement on the fundamentals, it seems prolonging this discussion is not worthwhile.

I have certainly on this blog come across many 'anti hydrogen fundamentalists' who wish to dismiss any notion of using hydrogen at all for energy storage, so with all due apologies for not necessarily remembering their handles, that is the only position against which I seek to argue.

My absolutist attitude to hydrogen is mostly informed by the Hydrogen Science Coalition. Please listen to Prof David Cebon on the Fully Charged podcast to understand the engineering realities of hydrogen and why most attitudes to it are totally misinformed. After five minutes my jaw began to drop. And it did not stop.

Davemart, I take offence because you do this every time. You make-up some point that nobody ever argued, and then you claim that someone else said it.

The other Bernard argued that so-called "green hydrogen" should only be used as a replacement for dirty fossil hydrogen, which is an entirely reasonable point even if you disagree. That Bernard provided supporting evidence. I've long argued that green H2 could have some uses in remote locations that can't be electrified economically, like the Hudson Bay Railway.

You keep arguing against a made-up commenter who doesn't want any green hydrogen in any circumstances. This is someone only you can see, and I strongly suspect you invented this person because it's a lot easier to argue to argue against a phantom that you can assign made-up opinions to.

Long story short: please stop. If you have valid points to make, go ahead, but don't invent stuff, or accuse others of writing thing that they didn't. This tactic of yours undermines any point you may have intended to make.

@Bernard said:

' I take offence because you do this every time. You make-up some point that nobody ever argued,'

Your point would be considerable stronger, if a post or so before that, Bernard Harper had not said:

' My absolutist attitude to hydrogen is mostly informed by the Hydrogen Science Coalition.'

I am not a mind reader, I respond to what people type and post.

And I have come across many, many posters whose opposition to the use of hydrogen approaches near religious intensity.

DM>with present tech, fuel cells can certainly do the job.

Yes, but not at competitive costs, when measured on a TCO cost per mile basis.

My confidence in near future (5-10 year) battery technology is based on looking at what is being demonstrated in the lab and in small production runs now and assessing whether those new cells require something really exotic to reach mass production or improvements in process and yield (difficult enough, but not a breakthrough like an entirely new chemistry).

The cost curve for light duty vehicles is a fair analog.

My 2013 Tesla Model S had 265 miles of range. Cost $90k

A current Model S has 400 mile range and costs about the same.

The Leaf and other affordable small cars have gone through a similar evolution, now have 250-320 mile range and are still affordable, especially when considering TCO.

That battery tech and price performance curve apply to the cells and packs used in bigger trucks, although adjusted for much lower pack volume.

I’m not counting on breakthroughs, just continued solid performance and scale.