EU Spent €1.2 Billion On Hydrogen Transportation, Requested For Extra To Compete With Batteries

Join day by day information updates from CleanTechnica on electronic mail. Or observe us on Google Information!

Lately the EU’s Joint Analysis Centre launched an evaluation of efforts associated to hydrogen for transportation. In it, they make the exceptional assertion that gas cell automobiles can’t compete with battery-electric automobiles after which ask for extra money to assist gas cell automobiles maintain going.

“Each FCEVs and FCEBs face competitors from battery electrical options, which profit from decrease operational prices and developments in expertise.”

Initiatives funded since 2008 to the tune of €1.2 billion haven’t been in a position to overcome reliability problems with automobiles and refueling stations, or scale back the price of low-carbon hydrogen a lot in any respect, whereas battery-electric automobiles have confirmed to be extra dependable, cheaper, and match for function. An sincere appraisal would have stated one thing like Okay, batteries gained, let’s shut this hydrogen for transportation thread down. As an alternative, it asks for enhanced monetary assist, expanded infrastructure from the general public purse, and cash for pro-hydrogen propaganda.

The report is the Historic Evaluation of Clear Hydrogen JU Gasoline Cell Electrical Autos, Buses and Refuelling Infrastructure Initiatives: Analysis of Contribution in the direction of the State of the Artwork. Like numerous the stories I’ve reviewed the place hydrogen is concerned as a transportation gas prior to now months, the cognitive dissonance bakes off of it like steam.

Assume I’m kidding in regards to the €1.2 billion since 2008?

Let’s get one factor out of the way in which. Each penny spent on gas cell vehicles was utterly wasted. Over 1 / 4 of a billion euros flushed down the drain. The market has collapsed to the purpose the place Toyota and Hyundai are virtually freely giving new vehicles with 60% reductions and free hydrogen refueling and nonetheless discovering no takers. This has been apparent for years, but funding for hydrogen taxi applications and lightweight automobile refueling stations continues.

That’s not the funding perspective within the JRC advice for extra money, by the way in which. Their numbers come out a lot decrease, to a cumulative €240 million per web page 8 of the current report. No, the massive numbers come from the EU’s Clear Hydrogen Joint Enterprise 2023 program assessment report.

What’s the Clear Hydrogen Joint Enterprise? It’s the renamed model of the Gasoline Cells and Hydrogen Joint Enterprise one and two. Why they renamed it’s an attention-grabbing query, as they didn’t seem to have modified its mandate within the course of. That mandate doesn’t embrace subsidies to compete with battery-electric automobiles until you squint, cross your eyes and hit your self within the brow with a frozen haddock.

2. It shall, specifically intention to:
(a) scale back the manufacturing value of gas cell methods for use in transport functions, whereas growing their lifetime to ranges which might compete with typical applied sciences,
(b) improve {the electrical} effectivity and the sturdiness of the totally different gas cells used for energy manufacturing to ranges which might compete with typical applied sciences, whereas decreasing prices,

These typical applied sciences could be diesel, LNG, and CNG, not battery-electric. But it’s battery-electric transportation that the JRC factors at because the competitors. Precisely, in fact, as battery-electric automobiles are lapping gas cell automobiles by each measure.

What organizations make it a joint endeavor? The three members are the European Union, represented by the European Fee, the gas cell and hydrogen industries represented by Hydrogen Europe, and the analysis group represented by Hydrogen Europe Analysis.

Ah. Two out of three of the key teams are explicitly ones which can be pushing hydrogen uphill. That explains the odd conclusion and the begging for cash. With out hydrogen for transportation being a factor, these folks have to seek out actual jobs.

Is there the rest attention-grabbing from the evaluation report exhibiting what the EU has obtained for its €1.2 billion? There definitely is.

Reliability considerations had been implied all around the doc, as a number of applications try to make gas cell drivetrains and refueling station reliability improve to the purpose the place it’s remotely helpful.

This evaluation knowledge from a hydrogen rubbish truck program is fascinating. Their goal was with the ability to drive 3,500 kilometers earlier than a gas cell drivetrain failure — an absurdly low quantity — they usually failed miserably in attaining it, solely attending to 785 km. That’s effectively underneath two weeks of driving for rubbish vehicles.

The report has this pithy line:

“In transport functions, a price of round 5 €/kg on the pump should be achieved for value parity with typical fuels.”

Present grey hydrogen refueling stations in Europe are pumping dust low cost grey hydrogen at a price of €15-€25 proper now. Earlier than that, pump costs had been a bit nearer to €10 for the most cost effective hydrogen attainable.

As BCG reported lately, it’s unlikely that inexperienced hydrogen will be capable to be manufactured in scaled industrial electrolysis services for that value, asserting a variety of €5-€8 in 2030, and my assertion is that will probably be within the higher a part of that vary. Provided that the 2023 common inexperienced hydrogen contract value level was €9.49 and the economics should not going to alter essentially, getting the delivered, saved, compressed, cleansed, and distributed retail value of low-carbon hydrogen all the way down to €5 ought to be a really large crimson flag.

Does the assessment say We are able to’t get there from right here, so let’s cease pretending we are able to? No, no it doesn’t. But it surely ought to. Does the report say Battery-electric drive trains are already effectively underneath that worth level for vitality so we must always surrender on hydrogen? No, no it doesn’t. But it surely ought to.

3EMOTION has deployed all 29 FCBs: 10 buses in London, 6 in Rotterdam and the South Holland province, 7 in Versailles, 3 in Pau and three in Aalborg, demonstrating the operability of buses from 4 totally different producers with 2 totally different gas cells methods. The buses of in some websites of 3EMOTION met the targets on Hydrogen Consumption (common of 8 kg H2/100 km), Guarantee Time (15 000 h) and Bus Value (< 850 000 EUR).

3EMOTION is likely one of the program’s funding ventures. Throughout 29 gas cell buses, over 10% of all of the gas cell buses in Europe on the time, so seemingly a consultant pattern, just some had achieved 20-month warranties and prices that don’t make eyeballs bleed.

Be aware that Yutong battery-electric buses value underneath €400,000 and have 8-year warranties. Main European electrical bus maker Solaris sells its electrical buses with 5 years of upkeep for €650,000. There’s an excellent motive that there are ten occasions as many battery-electric buses on European roads than gas cell buses regardless of the huge sums of cash the EU retains throwing at hydrogen.

Does the assessment say Hydrogen buses are vastly costlier and far much less dependable than battery-electric buses so we must always cease funding them? No, no it doesn’t. But it surely ought to.

The objectives for the €32 million H2HAUL-funded initiative are a combination of very bold and ludicrously low.

99% hydrogen refueling station uptime goal? But empirical knowledge from California’s gentle automobile and bus refueling stations is that they’re out of service, largely with compressor failures, extra hours than they pump hydrogen. That’s a goal that’s not even remotely going to be met. Whereas the JRC report is meant to incorporate knowledge on hydrogen refueling stations, it’s utterly silent on upkeep prices for them.

A price level of dishing out of hydrogen, unique of taxes, of €7.50? The H2HAUL web site may be very coy about whether or not will probably be pumping grey or inexperienced hydrogen. They’re going to be disillusioned on this goal as effectively.

16 vehicles and 4 refueling stations for €32 million? The identical numbers of battery-electric vehicles and megawatt-scale chargers could be maybe €12 million in the event that they had been gold-plated.

A kg/C02 goal solely 50% higher than a diesel truck? When full lifecycle battery-electric vehicles are 40% that of diesel and heading downward quickly because the grid and provide chains decarbonize?

Imply distance between failure better than 2,500 km? That’s underneath 3 days driving. That is for longer haul vehicles bear in mind. Actually? They hope to be higher than utterly unacceptable?

Does the JRC report have something to say about automobile reliability?

Sure, sure it does, though the JRC report is remarkably optimistic about what this abysmal file exhibits. Why abysmal? Discover the little x on the chart. That’s the goal of about €0.40 per kilometer for upkeep and operation. Be aware that nearly the entire fleets had been vastly above that. The JRC asserts that this exhibits that upkeep prices have decreased over time, however that’s not remotely a development seen from the info.

It does clearly assist the info I discovered from California’s bus fleets of a mean of fifty% larger than diesel bus upkeep prices, empirical knowledge which the whole value of possession for heavy responsibility cycle automobiles continues to disregard. I used to be unable to discover a report that offered an precisely equal worth for the JRC chart as upkeep prices for diesel buses embrace full engine overhauls each seven years, one thing that wasn’t inside the knowledge JRC gathered for gas cell buses as none have survived that lengthy.

Chip in just a few {dollars} a month to assist assist unbiased cleantech protection that helps to speed up the cleantech revolution!

The H2ME 2 hydrogen mobility undertaking outcomes reported within the Clear Hydrogen JU assessment caught my eye. They had been claiming 98% hydrogen refueling station availability, one thing that contradicts the entire empirical and anecdotal knowledge I’ve been assessing for a handful of months from a number of nations.

My preliminary evaluation of California’s gentle automobile refueling stations discovered that they had been out of service 2,000 extra hours than they had been pumping hydrogen, a 20% better downtime than utilization, and prices if projected to excessive quantity utilization could be doubtlessly 30% of capital expenditure per yr. I’ve really useful to European researchers that they revisit this with a proper report and greater than serviette sketch methodology and math to find out a extra acceptable quantity than the three% to 4% which can be generally present in whole value of possession research.

That appeared excessive, so I went to the H2ME 2 residence web page to have a look at detailed stories on the outcomes.

Errm… LOREM IPSUM DOLOR SIT AMET is placeholder textual content utilized in software and net improvement till actual textual content will be offered.

Within the absence of any supporting knowledge for the H2ME claims within the total doc in addition to the absence of any quantification of refueling station reliability within the JRC doc, my evaluation that hydrogen refueling stations are empirically unreliable isn’t moved. If anybody has precise outcomes from H2ME 2 to share, I’d admire seeing them. At current I take into account the 98% to be unsupported and unsupportable give the compressor failures California was seeing.

The IMMORTAL program for sturdiness of gas cells in heavy responsibility vehicles has attention-grabbing outcomes as effectively.

Be aware the 8,500 hours with 10% degradation. That’s barely greater than 1 / 4 of goal.

That’s solely two years with a 12-hour day for the truck, assuming extra drivers for the fleet in fact. That’s in all probability full substitute in 4 years at important expense.

Be aware additionally that their membrane sturdiness ends in the lab check bench circumstances should not replicated in actual world circumstances: “No public consequence comes near this variety of cycles.” And sure, I went to the IMMORTAL web site and confirmed it was laboratory solely.

That is lab TRL4 or 5 stuff. It could by no means be match for on-road, city air gas cell functions.

The JIVE program is pushing gas cell buses. It began in 2017, seven years in the past. It has delivered no quantitative outcomes in opposition to its targets besides attaining a capex underneath €650,000 on no less than a number of the buses.

It’s funded to the tune of €89 million throughout 8 places. That presumes 8 hydrogen refueling stations to go together with the 142 buses.

They might have put 3 times the variety of battery-electric buses in 24 places for €89 million.

And as soon as once more, seven years later, zero outcomes from this system on availability. And as soon as once more, solely 2,500 kilometers pushed between failure is the extremely low bar that’s been established. Transit buses common about 130 km of driving per day, so the purpose is to be higher than having them out of service each 19 days, or virtually 20 occasions a yr.

Diesel bus knowledge suggests 11,000 km is the baseline. Knowledge from battery-electric buses are combined as startups like Proterra delivered crappy merchandise, however they’re vastly higher than the targets for gas cell buses already, and in lots of stories delivering on the promise of being decrease upkeep than diesel buses, with an ideal deal extra of points associated to ancillaries like doorways than drivetrains.

Then there are the maritime transport, trains, and aviation efforts, that are useless within the water, on the tracks, and on the runway. Zero quantitative outcomes from these initiatives, however €130 million thrown at them nonetheless.

What does this all add as much as?

The JRC and the 2023 Clear Hydrogen JU stories are litanies of high-priced failures, lack of progress in making hydrogen match for function, and cash pits for EU taxpayer cash. Any inclusion of battery-electric choices in comparisons results in the conclusion that the JRC made, that batteries are higher in each approach.

The conclusions, in the event that they weren’t being written by organizations that are so dedicated to hydrogen that they’ll now not acknowledge flashing crimson warning lights or hear 110 decibel sirens, ought to be that the EU ought to cease funding hydrogen for transportation efforts as a result of it doesn’t work. As an alternative, they ask for much more cash and assist.