Three years after releasing its initial findings and in light of new information, the North American Council for Freight Efficiency (NACFE) has reviewed the potential for hydrogen fuel-cell-electric trucks to meet zero-emissions goals.
According to Rick Mihelic, report author and head of emerging technologies at NACFE, "as we move to the zero emissions freight future, in the long run, there are only two choices of power — battery-electric and hydrogen fuel cell."
Local transportation is quickly adopting battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), but for some uses requiring longer routes and heavier payloads, trucks powered by hydrogen may be preferable. A solution that involves quicker refueling times than BEVs will also be required for team activities.
One of the many forecasts made by NACFE in 2020, when it conducted its first in-depth analysis of hydrogen, was accurate: a hydrogen economy cannot be based solely on long-haul trucking.
During a conference call to review the findings of NACFE's Hydrogen Trucks: Long Haul's Future? report, Mihelic stated, "There's not enough demand."
However, the initial report overlooked the development of diesel-based engines that burn hydrogen, which have since emerged as a possible remedy. Since current engine designs can be used, a hydrogen internal combustion engine offers a solution with almost no emissions in addition to being simpler and less expensive.
The study also notes that, in terms of miles per kilogram of hydrogen consumed, a hydrogen internal combustion engine will probably fall short of fuel cells. Then there is the matter of how hydrogen will be carried onto the truck and delivered. Options are available in both liquid and gaseous forms, but NACFE believes there should be uniformity.
According to Mike Roeth, executive head of NACFE, a liquid hydrogen tanker can transport almost as much energy as a liquid diesel tanker. In this case, hydrogen can be moved to refueling locations in a manner similar to how diesel is done at the moment. It would require more than eight gaseous tanker trailers, like those used in Europe, to have the same energy density as a single liquid tanker.
Roeth pointed out that since we have expertise generating and delivering electricity to locations where it is required, no hydrogen option will completely replace BEVs. The next issue is: How will BEVs and FCEV (hydrogen-fuel-cell-electric) trucks be mixed?
How the hydrogen will be generated is a fresh factor. NACFE previously described a color spectrum of hydrogen based on how cleanly it is produced, with green hydrogen being the most eco-friendly choice. Since then, debate has changed from color to "carbon intensity" of production, according to Mihelic.
As long as the carbon intensity is correctly managed, he said, "We don't hear how it's produced."
Four main conclusions are drawn from the report: that both BEV and FCEV options will be necessary; that only BEV and FCEV will be able to satisfy the zero-emissions requirements of a wide range of duty cycles; that alternative fuels like renewable diesel or renewable natural gas will still be required to support the transition to zero-emission freight; and that the industry must decide whether hydrogen should be transported and consumed in gaseous or liquid form.
Another surprise since NACFE's earlier reports on the topic is how quickly the technology is developing. While it will take time to decide how, when, and where hydrogen trucks will fit into the future of zero emissions freight, this is another surprise.
Rob Reich, senior vice-president of Schneider, stated in the report that "hydrogen technology is coming faster than we anticipated." This year, we'll be trying a truck.
