Damiler Fuel Cell Truck Tests

DAIMLER FUEL-CELL TRUCK TESTS UNDERWAY

With the commencement of an extensive and rigorous testing programme involving its prototype GenH2 truck, Daimler Trucks has reached the next milestone on its path to the series production of hydrogen-powered fuel-cells for the electrification of its long-haul transport vehicles.

Unveiled last year, the GenH2 Truck is designed to meet the same durability requirements as a comparable conventional Mercedes-Benz Actros, the aim being to achieve ranges of up to 1,000 kilometres and more without stopping for refuelling. This equates to handling 1.2 million kilometres on the road over a period of ten years and a total 25,000 hours of operation. During testing, the vehicle and its components will be put through its paces on continuous operation, different weather and road conditions and various driving manoeuvres, amongst others. Testing will see the vehicle cover hundreds of kilometres under continuous load and undergo many extreme situations, based on real-life operating conditions, such as emergency braking and kerbstone drives along the test track. Newly designed from the ground up, the GenH2 truck features completely new components – the fuel-cell system, all-electric powertrain and associated systems such as a special cooling unit. Preferring to use liquid hydrogen as the energy carrier – with its higher energy density in relation to volume than gaseous hydrogen – fuel-cell tanks on truck using liquid hydrogen are much smaller and, due to lower pressure, significantly lighter. Coupled with giving the trucks more cargo space and a higher payload, more hydrogen can be carried, which significantly increases the trucks’ range. Like conventional diesel trucks, the series GenH2 truck will be suitable for multi-day, difficult-to-plan long-haul transport, where the daily energy throughput is high. In addition, because the weight and position of new components affect its handling properties differently than those in conventional vehicles, the current prototype will be loaded during tests with a payload of up to 25 tons for a gross vehicle weight of about 40 tons, identical to the specifications planned for the series-produced variant. According to Daimler Trucks’ development plan, it is expected to undergo tests on public roads before the end of the year with customer trials scheduled to begin in 2023. It is expected that the first series-produced GenH2 trucks will be delivered to customers in 2027.

THE FUTURE IS ECLECTIC

BY GEOFF POTTER, GRAY & ADAMS

Meeting our climate goals will require a broad range of sustainable propulsion technologies. The transport industry has a great opportunity to demonstrate real leadership by implementing solutions with low total lifecycle emissions, rather than those, such as battery, which only seek to deliver reduced emissions at the tailpipe.

It’s therefore worth taking off our lithium-stained spectacles to reflect on what reality would look like if the UK’s proposed ban on the sale of the ICE was to actually be implemented and the future consisted purely of battery propulsion. The following memorial prayer by a repentant battery electric vehicle activist may give us some idea. “We commend to you our loyal servant the internal combustion engine. Like most things in life the ICE wasn’t perfect, but it had many qualities and had mobilised humanity for over a century. Despite being developed into one of the cleanest propulsion technologies, with better lifecycle CO2 emissions than many BEVs and almost no NOx, the ICE was condemned in a senseless sop to political correctness. We would ask for guidance on what we should do now. We put our faith in batteries but now find we haven’t the grid capacity to charge them. BEV range remains restrictive, while age related battery degradation and cold weather conditions continue to magnify this weakness. We didn’t think through the implications of the additional time required for battery charging in comparison with vehicle refuelling, or the massive volumes of roadworks and associated disruption resulting from the implementation of a charging infrastructure. We completely underestimated society’s annoyance at all these compromises. Worse still, all this sacrifice has been for nothing since carbon dioxide levels have actually risen as a result of the massive emissions inherent in battery manufacturing and the fact that the unilateral focus on BEVs completely undermined the implementation of other more readily available clean technologies. The enforcement of BEVs on society has been an unmitigated disaster which has cost taxpayers dearly and not only starved many genuine environmental projects of funding, but also other worthy causes such as health and education. Forgive our arrogance. BEVs had a bright future and a vital role in mobility, but we squandered the opportunity believing instead that batteries were the all-encompassing silver bullet solution. Other propulsion technologies invited us to work with them to secure a cleaner future, but we shunned their approaches. Our goal wasn’t lower emissions; batteries had lived in the shadow of the internal combustion for over 125 years and were going to have their day in the sun, regardless of the cost to humanity. With most other propulsion technologies now outlawed or politically undermined, we effectively stand alone and have come to understand the wisdom behind the saying ‘it is much easier to oppose than to govern’.

Forgive our financial

recklessness and the £600+ million per week deficit in UK Government revenues, resulting solely from the loss of fuel duty and VAT on fuel duty. We’re afraid to mention the additional lost revenues from the VAT charged on the fuel itself, let alone the losses from road tax. We even tried to suppress the financial losses incurred by UK business when we undermined the ICE without a viable option. We refused to wait on the introduction of the much superior (and less infrastructure reliant) solid-state battery technology and threatened to libel the Government as ‘antienvironmental’ if they did not squander countless £billions of taxpayers’ money to support current technology lithiumion liquid electrolyte (mobile phone ilk) battery propulsion. Forgive our hypocrisy. We were happy to lambast VW while simultaneously encouraging BEV manufacturers to mislead the public with ‘Zero Emissions’ marketing and vehicle badging. We knew that our ‘Zero Emissions’ messaging completely failed to recognise the emissions from battery manufacturing and disposal, or the inconvenient truth that a major portion of the electricity used to charge BEVs is generated using fossil fuels, or even the fact that BEVs produce emissions from tyres, brakes and road wear. However, we continued unabated and now appreciate that our misleading propaganda was a distortion of the facts much greater than dieselgate. We were finally forced to admit that a BEV is not a ‘zero emissions vehicle’ but rather a significantly different ‘zero tailpipe emissions vehicle’. Forgive our duplicity. We complained when others ridiculed the limited range of our BEVs while responding with nebulous statements about improved versions being in the pipeline. We used old technology propaganda to undermine the latest Euro 6 variants. We labelled clean diesel “dirty” while suppressing our struggle to find an environmentally friendly way to manufacture and dispose of batteries. We thought we could dupe society by peddling the concept of using redundant BEV batteries for static storage, however society soon realised that these enormous quantities of dead batteries would ultimately need to be dealt with. Forgive our greed. We wanted complete market dominance and we wanted it given to us on a plate. We demanded high taxation on fossil fuels, while insisting on subsidies for BEVs. We demanded government funding for BEV development while simultaneously petitioning for the funding ladder to be pulled up on other propulsion technologies. We were terrified by the threat posed to batteries by clean ICE (especially when fuelled by synthetic fuels, biofuels, natural gas or hydrogen) and unrelentingly petitioned for its destruction. We even believed hybrids were too much of a compromise. In our world no other technology was acceptable and we didn’t care if genuine environmental projects were underfunded as a result of our greed, just as long as taxpayers’ monies were diverted to us. It had to be pure battery or nothing, whatever the cost to society. Forgive our naivety. We believed evangelist Elon and his Teslanic teachings. We were oblivious to China’s cunning strategy for automotive world domination through its use of the BEV as a Trojan horse, and completely failed to recognise the significance of China’s stranglehold on the battery supply chain. While the general public remained unaware that politicians had been subverted by Big Battery, we successfully petitioned Government to legislate batteries into a position of prominence and now find that the UK automotive industry is now effectively under the control of the PRC.

Forgive our intolerance towards any other propulsion

technology. We admit our attacks on the internal combustion engine and hybrids were only the start. Hydrogen Fuel Cell was also on our target list, because Elon said it was ‘incredibly dumb’ and we believed him. We recognised that the term ‘battery vehicle’ didn’t resonate with society, so we aggressively marketed BEVs as ‘electric’ while simultaneously promoting the view that Fuel Cell and Hybrid Electric Vehicles were not worthy to be called ‘electric’. Forgive all our sins. We got so caught up in trying to establish battery propulsion and eliminating all alternatives that we lost sight of the economic, social and technical realities. We lost sight of the truth and are truly sorry for orchestrating this disastrous strategy. Help us to see there’s no one size fits all solution, to accept that other propulsion technologies can deliver significant benefits and to work in harmony with them to deliver a truly cleaner and financially viable future for all.”

Geoff Potter