Your reasoning WHY JCB has going hydrogen was not because they werent comfortable with batteries, JCB has built both an electric and fuel cell excavators. The reason why they have gone hyrogen is 1) to scale pure battery or fuel cell for an excavator, the vehicle becomes too heavy for use. 2) the pure battery version TAKES TOO LONG to charge, and battery swap is not feasible for many construction sites, 3) they sell construction equipment to many customers in cold climates, the battery capacity will not match the duty cycle required 4) the hydrogen engine developed at JCB has the same power curve as their diesel, so for operators, using this new heavy piece of equipment does not require retraining on vehicle load handling characteristics. 5) Many maintenance mechanics can retrain much quicker to dealing with hydrogen combustion because the hydrogen engine retains many component equivalents, thus troubleshooting skills are kept intact. You need to see ALL of the Harrys Garage videos that speak with Lord Bamford at JCB and even see the Fully Charged episode when where an electric excavator built is used in a garden - the weight and duty cycle that a pure battery excavator can handle. Much of the reasoning why heavy machinery is diesel and passager cars are gas holds even with electric/fuel cell/hydrogen. All solutions have SCALE LIMITS. Just because you can power a car with current battery tech doesnt mean you can upscale it to do construction. JCB has been in business for a long time, and its because THEY UNDERSTAND the demands of construction sites. It would do people good to listen to that experience talking, than to try to come up with an explanation as to why JCB went hydrogen. JCB literally explained themselves in the two Harry's Garage videos. No interpretation or "take" is required.
Thanks for sharing. Loads of good points. I couldn’t agree more with your 5 points. As I mentioned in the video. ‘Well done JCB’ It’s a step in the right direction. We need an established green hydrogen supply chain for all the ‘scale limit’ machinery you mention which should include ships and planes in my view. JCB are playing their part in making this happen. Harry is the JCB PR department now isn’t he? 😂😂
I too have seen the Harry's Garage videos you refer to, and I think this video fails to make clear that JCB have been on an evolutionary path; they tried battery, that didn't work, so they tried fuel cells, and that didn't work either, and so they have developed a hydrogen engine which does work in the environment in which their machines operate.
Whilst a pure electric vehicle can work in a car or bus, it isn’t necessarily going to work on plant equipment for the following reasons: 1) Weight - any form of electric vehicle using batteries will be heavier and thus this creates additional issues in having to make yet bigger plant to do the same job 2) Time - plant kit needs to be capable of being used by more than one shift whilst electric vehicles need to be charged, hence needing twice as many vehicles to do the same job. 3) New Technology - if you can use a hydrogen engine that is similar to a Diesel engine, you can use existing technology and skilled engineers to make and service this rather than train a new workforce. 4) Temperature - batteries are less effective in cold environments and this is less of a problem with internal combustion engines 5) Putting all ones eggs in one basket - if you put everything down the pure electric vehicle path, what happens when you hit a wall caused by lack of batteries or battery materials? At least this is diversification
Another reason why many manufacturers are choosing combustion engines instead of Fuel cell is Fuel cells require 99.9999% Hydrogen purity, impurities as in in trace amounts of foreign gases or lubricant residue would totally destroy a fuel cell stack, Combustion engines on the other hand are totally immune to impurities.
I would like to point out Fuel Cells have higher efficiency at low loads while Combustion Engines are most efficient at medium to high loads. You mentioned that small combustion engines are 25% efficient at best this is far from true, Petrol engines from Toyota and Honda for example are roughly 42% efficient and the 2.3 litre engine developed by Achetes exceded 51% efficiency. I believe these are the key reasons why companies like JCB, Cummins, Toyota and AVL are so keen on developing Hydrogen ICE rather than Hydrogen Fuel Cell technology.
Lab efficiencies running on a flat doing 42mph are very different to the real world. Still impressive but once you factor in a backhoe sitting around for 5 mins running the air con and radio then dragging a cable through the ground I can’t see these efficiencies being reached with ICE alone. How far can you push the efficiency on a spinning mass that has to come to a dead stop and then operate in the opposite direction Maybe we should all go back to 2 stroke diesels like the Napier Deltic and forget efficiency and enjoy the low RPM scream
I watched a video by Harry talking about JCB and Hydrogen (you probably saw it too) but one thing that struck me was when someone said the diggers etc would need refuelling three times during the day!!! Hydrogen is expensive stuff so who is going to pay for that? Not to mention the refuelling lorry that was continually driving back and forth to the hydrogen station all day long, if they could even supply it. Simple physics would indicate this is not a sustainable solution.
Thanks for commenting I watched the Harry’s Garage video where Harry was touring the factory and they talked about how hydrogen is going to be so cheap that it will be stupid not to change to this. I was a bit sceptical but then we have seen plenty of things that have come down in price over the years. Computing is a good example. I would be surprised if it couldn’t fuel up and last a day compressed into tanks. Re fueling and energy density is where hydrogen beats batteries.
Designing an ICE engine that runs on hydrogen is the easy part. The really difficult part was mostly skipped in this video and that is the infrastructure needed to distribute hydrogen. You can't put more than 10% hydrogen into our current gas network without it making the plastic gas pipes brittle so it would need an all metal pipe network. And Hydrogen molecules are so small they need special very expensive joints and valves because it leaks out of conventional gas seals. Consequently installing a duplicate hydrogen gas network to the one we already have would be monstrously expensive. If you try and transport it by tanker, even when compressed to 700x atmospheric pressure its energy density is so low that in the heavy tanks to take that pressure you can only get 600kg of hydrogen on a 40 ton tanker lorry. 600kg of hydrogen contains less than 1/6 of the energy carried by a regular petrol tanker so if your tanker runs on hydrogen very little of the hydrogen it carries will get to the final destination and therefore you are going to need a vast fleet of tankers. If you want to generate the hydrogen at the filling stations you are going to need to put in the same very high capacity electricity distribution infrastructure needed for high rate battery vehicle charging plus pay for the substantial investment in plant, hydrogen storage and maintenance it will need. So then you have to ask if the latest high rate battery chargers can get you 100miles of added range in 10 minutes would you pay more than twice as much for your vehicles energy to fill up with hydrogen if that is going to take you 3 minutes, probably not.
Thanks for sharing. There is lots that time wouldn’t allow me to touch on in the video. I might do a follow up. . . Hydrogen will defo have its places. I imagine refuelling at a site would be easier than securing 22kw - 150kw charging when the machine may not be road legal or electric power available. At the same time there is use cases where electric is entirely possible and the best solution. All the issues you mention are relevant. Check out ‘Hydeploy’ a project to test blending of hydrogen in the existing network based at Keele University. Blends and 100% hydrogen is being tested and the reports are good. Although I don’t see the main gas network being fully hydrogen any time soon
the biggest problem with the battery system is life charge discharge cycle they don't really like fast charging it creates a fair amount of heat which over time degrades the battery there is also the danger of batteries catching fire when being charged I used to race r/c model cars they use the same lithium battery technology and we had to charge them in a fireproof bag just in case, a 2cell lipo pack catching fire is quite spectacular I think they have been very lucky so far
Thanks for sharing. Battery chemistry for EVs have come a long way from those lithium polymer days. For example, early Nissan leafs in extreme climates didn’t last half as long as competitions batteries due to non cooled battery packs. Now water cooling is common place. Higher pack voltages reduce current required through packs. I used to run nitro cars. Can’t think of anything better than them screaming in unison and changing gear 🫨
Combustible hydrogen in the ICEngine of a plug-in hybrid PHEV drivetrain - stores at much lower pressure in smaller/safer tanks and can deliver at least twice the equivalent MPG possible in a hydrogen fuel cell EV. PHEV tech is especially applicable to long-haul freight trucks and heavy machinery.
@@TheOfficialBatteryMan -- Trick question: BEV vs PHEV vs HFCEV -- Which of the 3 basic EV drivetrains offers the most benefits, applications and potential to reduce fuel/energy consumption, emissions AND insane traffic? The correct answer is PHEV to serve ~65% of EV needs. BEV (all-battery) serves the remaining 35% in lightweight vehicles and short distance travel/transport needs. HFCEV cannot achieve half the efficiency possible with PHEV+H combustible hydrogen. The "trick" in this question is the unavoidable necessity to reduce motor vehicle traffic whereby it becomes less insane. PHEV tech incentivizes driving less and more cautiously with a light touch on the accelerator pedal to rely more on their modest capacity battery packs. More routine trips become shorter distances, whereby local economies grow and more trips become possible without having to drive. PHEV freight truck battery packs are 1/5 the capacity of BEV packs -- 500+kwh vs 100kwh. The BEV pack depletes and must be replaced at 200k miles. The 5 PHEV packs that deplete at 150k miles still deliver 750k miles vs 200k miles and their replacement packs are more affordable. Standard Hybrid ICEngines can be 30%-40% more fuel efficient than normally aspirated ICEngine drivetrains. Many car companies are experimenting with combustible hydrogen in ICEngines and the PHEV+H configuration seems to be the logical next step. I write about this in an essay titled "The Walking Communities of 2040" on my facebook page or wherever else it has been posted.
But Hydrogen doesn't always need to be transported, it can produced right where it is consumed , water is everywhere, sun is everywhere why should we have centralized hydrogen production
Good point. Although that requires a product which will be produced on a small scale, be maintained and user friendly. Doable for sure. I’m sure we will see this over the next few years. It’s also a great way to use excess or spare renewables if there is an excess production
Battery vehicles are useless for construction and agricultural, JCB tried it and scrapped the idea after 2 years. Using a hydrogen fuel cell with a battery bank is useless because of the massive weight of the batteries, it all comes down to simple engineering facts Petrol 35mJ/kg Diesel 40mJ/kg Battery 0.37 mJ/kg JCB have also built the refuelling system to go with the vehicles. The BMW was a hybrid petrol/Hydrogen using a huge engine in a car costing well over 100.000 euro, and was never put into production beyond 100 vehicles. A turbocharged engine is more efficient than a normally aspirated, pushing ic efficiency up to around 30-35%, fuel cell efficiency around 40%, it is the weight of the batteries that wrecks all battery and fuel cell technology, and given that battery research has been continuous since about 1900 I am not expecting any huge breakthroughs!
Thanks for sharing. I completely agree current mass produced lithium or sodium battery's are not energy dense compared to fossil fuels or hydrogen is when its compressed. My main highlight was the efficiency losses through the process. Still a great move by JCB as hydrogen can be produced 'low carbon'. Ultimately the end user will pay for efficiency losses in their purchase of the fuel or machine. Its an interesting space for sure. I want JCB to do well. Check out the Hyundai HW155H, fuel celled and they had to consider cooling rads (efficiency losses)
Electric construction vehicles just need a bit of imagination. Batteries in the vehicle is not the only approach. Some of the diggers are basically stationary and could be plugged in permanently. Most building sites are near high voltage supply
Rubbish not a great intellect no reason why it’s not good You need to give the solution to the problem,which you have not Green hydrogen for the future believe and invest. If not what is the answer. So come on tell me ??? Do not be coy let me and the rest of the world know. Waiting ???
Thanks for sharing. I believe that green hydrogen has a huge role to play in the future and we need more production and distribution now. Along with continued advancement. JCB are doing a great thing pushing hydrogen use and development forward
@@terryantony8531JCB are a partner in the HyDEX project. They play a role in proving hydrogens merits and getting a hydrogen economy started in the Midlands and the UK. It shows JCB have lots of support behind them in this venture
Your reasoning WHY JCB has going hydrogen was not because they werent comfortable with batteries, JCB has built both an electric and fuel cell excavators. The reason why they have gone hyrogen is 1) to scale pure battery or fuel cell for an excavator, the vehicle becomes too heavy for use. 2) the pure battery version TAKES TOO LONG to charge, and battery swap is not feasible for many construction sites, 3) they sell construction equipment to many customers in cold climates, the battery capacity will not match the duty cycle required 4) the hydrogen engine developed at JCB has the same power curve as their diesel, so for operators, using this new heavy piece of equipment does not require retraining on vehicle load handling characteristics. 5) Many maintenance mechanics can retrain much quicker to dealing with hydrogen combustion because the hydrogen engine retains many component equivalents, thus troubleshooting skills are kept intact. You need to see ALL of the Harrys Garage videos that speak with Lord Bamford at JCB and even see the Fully Charged episode when where an electric excavator built is used in a garden - the weight and duty cycle that a pure battery excavator can handle. Much of the reasoning why heavy machinery is diesel and passager cars are gas holds even with electric/fuel cell/hydrogen. All solutions have SCALE LIMITS. Just because you can power a car with current battery tech doesnt mean you can upscale it to do construction. JCB has been in business for a long time, and its because THEY UNDERSTAND the demands of construction sites. It would do people good to listen to that experience talking, than to try to come up with an explanation as to why JCB went hydrogen. JCB literally explained themselves in the two Harry's Garage videos. No interpretation or "take" is required.
Thanks for sharing. Loads of good points. I couldn’t agree more with your 5 points.
As I mentioned in the video. ‘Well done JCB’ It’s a step in the right direction. We need an established green hydrogen supply chain for all the ‘scale limit’ machinery you mention which should include ships and planes in my view. JCB are playing their part in making this happen.
Harry is the JCB PR department now isn’t he? 😂😂
I too have seen the Harry's Garage videos you refer to, and I think this video fails to make clear that JCB have been on an evolutionary path; they tried battery, that didn't work, so they tried fuel cells, and that didn't work either, and so they have developed a hydrogen engine which does work in the environment in which their machines operate.
Whilst a pure electric vehicle can work in a car or bus, it isn’t necessarily going to work on plant equipment for the following reasons:
1) Weight - any form of electric vehicle using batteries will be heavier and thus this creates additional issues in having to make yet bigger plant to do the same job
2) Time - plant kit needs to be capable of being used by more than one shift whilst electric vehicles need to be charged, hence needing twice as many vehicles to do the same job.
3) New Technology - if you can use a hydrogen engine that is similar to a Diesel engine, you can use existing technology and skilled engineers to make and service this rather than train a new workforce.
4) Temperature - batteries are less effective in cold environments and this is less of a problem with internal combustion engines
5) Putting all ones eggs in one basket - if you put everything down the pure electric vehicle path, what happens when you hit a wall caused by lack of batteries or battery materials? At least this is diversification
Another reason why many manufacturers are choosing combustion engines instead of Fuel cell is Fuel cells require 99.9999% Hydrogen purity, impurities as in in trace amounts of foreign gases or lubricant residue would totally destroy a fuel cell stack, Combustion engines on the other hand are totally immune to impurities.
Good point. Thanks for sharing
I would like to point out Fuel Cells have higher efficiency at low loads while Combustion Engines are most efficient at medium to high loads. You mentioned that small combustion engines are 25% efficient at best this is far from true, Petrol engines from Toyota and Honda for example are roughly 42% efficient and the 2.3 litre engine developed by Achetes exceded 51% efficiency. I believe these are the key reasons why companies like JCB, Cummins, Toyota and AVL are so keen on developing Hydrogen ICE rather than Hydrogen Fuel Cell technology.
Lab efficiencies running on a flat doing 42mph are very different to the real world. Still impressive but once you factor in a backhoe sitting around for 5 mins running the air con and radio then dragging a cable through the ground I can’t see these efficiencies being reached with ICE alone. How far can you push the efficiency on a spinning mass that has to come to a dead stop and then operate in the opposite direction
Maybe we should all go back to 2 stroke diesels like the Napier Deltic and forget efficiency and enjoy the low RPM scream
I watched a video by Harry talking about JCB and Hydrogen (you probably saw it too) but one thing that struck me was when someone said the diggers etc would need refuelling three times during the day!!! Hydrogen is expensive stuff so who is going to pay for that? Not to mention the refuelling lorry that was continually driving back and forth to the hydrogen station all day long, if they could even supply it.
Simple physics would indicate this is not a sustainable solution.
Thanks for commenting
I watched the Harry’s Garage video where Harry was touring the factory and they talked about how hydrogen is going to be so cheap that it will be stupid not to change to this. I was a bit sceptical but then we have seen plenty of things that have come down in price over the years. Computing is a good example.
I would be surprised if it couldn’t fuel up and last a day compressed into tanks. Re fueling and energy density is where hydrogen beats batteries.
Designing an ICE engine that runs on hydrogen is the easy part. The really difficult part was mostly skipped in this video and that is the infrastructure needed to distribute hydrogen. You can't put more than 10% hydrogen into our current gas network without it making the plastic gas pipes brittle so it would need an all metal pipe network. And Hydrogen molecules are so small they need special very expensive joints and valves because it leaks out of conventional gas seals. Consequently installing a duplicate hydrogen gas network to the one we already have would be monstrously expensive. If you try and transport it by tanker, even when compressed to 700x atmospheric pressure its energy density is so low that in the heavy tanks to take that pressure you can only get 600kg of hydrogen on a 40 ton tanker lorry. 600kg of hydrogen contains less than 1/6 of the energy carried by a regular petrol tanker so if your tanker runs on hydrogen very little of the hydrogen it carries will get to the final destination and therefore you are going to need a vast fleet of tankers. If you want to generate the hydrogen at the filling stations you are going to need to put in the same very high capacity electricity distribution infrastructure needed for high rate battery vehicle charging plus pay for the substantial investment in plant, hydrogen storage and maintenance it will need. So then you have to ask if the latest high rate battery chargers can get you 100miles of added range in 10 minutes would you pay more than twice as much for your vehicles energy to fill up with hydrogen if that is going to take you 3 minutes, probably not.
Thanks for sharing. There is lots that time wouldn’t allow me to touch on in the video. I might do a follow up. . .
Hydrogen will defo have its places. I imagine refuelling at a site would be easier than securing 22kw - 150kw charging when the machine may not be road legal or electric power available. At the same time there is use cases where electric is entirely possible and the best solution.
All the issues you mention are relevant. Check out ‘Hydeploy’ a project to test blending of hydrogen in the existing network based at Keele University. Blends and 100% hydrogen is being tested and the reports are good. Although I don’t see the main gas network being fully hydrogen any time soon
the biggest problem with the battery system is life charge discharge cycle they don't really like fast charging it creates a fair amount of heat which over time degrades the battery there is also the danger of batteries catching fire when being charged I used to race r/c model cars they use the same lithium battery technology and we had to charge them in a fireproof bag just in case, a 2cell lipo pack catching fire is quite spectacular I think they have been very lucky so far
Thanks for sharing. Battery chemistry for EVs have come a long way from those lithium polymer days. For example, early Nissan leafs in extreme climates didn’t last half as long as competitions batteries due to non cooled battery packs. Now water cooling is common place. Higher pack voltages reduce current required through packs.
I used to run nitro cars. Can’t think of anything better than them screaming in unison and changing gear 🫨
Combustible hydrogen in the ICEngine of a plug-in hybrid PHEV drivetrain - stores at much lower pressure in smaller/safer tanks and can deliver at least twice the equivalent MPG possible in a hydrogen fuel cell EV. PHEV tech is especially applicable to long-haul freight trucks and heavy machinery.
Thanks for sharing
@@TheOfficialBatteryMan -- Trick question: BEV vs PHEV vs HFCEV -- Which of the 3 basic EV drivetrains offers the most benefits, applications and potential to reduce fuel/energy consumption, emissions AND insane traffic? The correct answer is PHEV to serve ~65% of EV needs. BEV (all-battery) serves the remaining 35% in lightweight vehicles and short distance travel/transport needs. HFCEV cannot achieve half the efficiency possible with PHEV+H combustible hydrogen.
The "trick" in this question is the unavoidable necessity to reduce motor vehicle traffic whereby it becomes less insane. PHEV tech incentivizes driving less and more cautiously with a light touch on the accelerator pedal to rely more on their modest capacity battery packs. More routine trips become shorter distances, whereby local economies grow and more trips become possible without having to drive.
PHEV freight truck battery packs are 1/5 the capacity of BEV packs -- 500+kwh vs 100kwh. The BEV pack depletes and must be replaced at 200k miles. The 5 PHEV packs that deplete at 150k miles still deliver 750k miles vs 200k miles and their replacement packs are more affordable.
Standard Hybrid ICEngines can be 30%-40% more fuel efficient than normally aspirated ICEngine drivetrains. Many car companies are experimenting with combustible hydrogen in ICEngines and the PHEV+H configuration seems to be the logical next step. I write about this in an essay titled "The Walking Communities of 2040" on my facebook page or wherever else it has been posted.
Best video. Very informative.
Thanks for sharing
But Hydrogen doesn't always need to be transported, it can produced right where it is consumed , water is everywhere, sun is everywhere why should we have centralized hydrogen production
Good point. Although that requires a product which will be produced on a small scale, be maintained and user friendly. Doable for sure. I’m sure we will see this over the next few years. It’s also a great way to use excess or spare renewables if there is an excess production
Battery vehicles are useless for construction and agricultural, JCB tried it and scrapped the idea after 2 years. Using a hydrogen fuel cell with a battery bank is useless because of the massive weight of the batteries, it all comes down to simple engineering facts
Petrol 35mJ/kg
Diesel 40mJ/kg
Battery 0.37 mJ/kg
JCB have also built the refuelling system to go with the vehicles. The BMW was a hybrid petrol/Hydrogen using a huge engine in a car costing well over 100.000 euro, and was never put into production beyond 100 vehicles. A turbocharged engine is more efficient than a normally aspirated, pushing ic efficiency up to around 30-35%, fuel cell efficiency around 40%, it is the weight of the batteries that wrecks all battery and fuel cell technology, and given that battery research has been continuous since about 1900 I am not expecting any huge breakthroughs!
Thanks for sharing. I completely agree current mass produced lithium or sodium battery's are not energy dense compared to fossil fuels or hydrogen is when its compressed. My main highlight was the efficiency losses through the process. Still a great move by JCB as hydrogen can be produced 'low carbon'. Ultimately the end user will pay for efficiency losses in their purchase of the fuel or machine. Its an interesting space for sure. I want JCB to do well. Check out the Hyundai HW155H, fuel celled and they had to consider cooling rads (efficiency losses)
Electric construction vehicles just need a bit of imagination. Batteries in the vehicle is not the only approach. Some of the diggers are basically stationary and could be plugged in permanently. Most building sites are near high voltage supply
Rubbish not a great intellect no reason why it’s not good You need to give the solution to the problem,which you have not
Green hydrogen for the future believe and invest. If not what is the answer. So come on tell me ??? Do not be coy let me and the rest of the world know.
Waiting ???
Thanks for sharing.
I believe that green hydrogen has a huge role to play in the future and we need more production and distribution now. Along with continued advancement. JCB are doing a great thing pushing hydrogen use and development forward
I agree JCB should not become complacent they look like the ones leading at the mo, JCB even had a visit from the F1 reps.....watch this space
@@terryantony8531JCB are a partner in the HyDEX project. They play a role in proving hydrogens merits and getting a hydrogen economy started in the Midlands and the UK. It shows JCB have lots of support behind them in this venture