# Nikola Motors Electric Semi Truck



## Hollie Maea (Dec 9, 2009)

michaeljayclark said:


> Is this even possible with a 400 KW Gas Turbine for an onboard generator?
> 
> https://nikolamotor.com/one


Yes it is.


----------



## michaeljayclark (Apr 3, 2008)

What would the electricity requirement to propel a 80,000 pound vehicle up a 5% grade for 5 miles? 

I've heard gas turbines become less efficient the larger they get

I just have serious doubts 400 KW would be enough to do the job of driving the vehicle up a mountain while weighing 80,000 pounds


----------



## Hollie Maea (Dec 9, 2009)

michaeljayclark said:


> What would the electricity requirement to propel a 80,000 pound vehicle up a 5% grade for 5 miles?
> 
> I've heard gas turbines become less efficient the larger they get
> 
> I just have serious doubts 400 KW would be enough to do the job of driving the vehicle up a mountain while weighing 80,000 pounds


I can't give you any of the numbers. But I can assure you that this vehicle was sized for the job.

Keep in mind that hills don't last forever. So the truck can draw significantly more than 400kW when going up a hill, due to the 315kWh battery. The whole point of a series hybrid is that the range extender must cover only the average load. 400kW is enough for that.


----------



## ishiwgao (May 5, 2011)

Hollie Maea said:


> I can't give you any of the numbers. But I can assure you that this vehicle was sized for the job.


ooo this sounds like you were involved in the project!  cant wait to hear more in the future when you can release details


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

Gas turbines become MORE efficient as they get larger
and 400Kw is 533Hp - 
Some (only a few) of today's truck engines exceed 600hp - BUT they only achieve that power at maximum rpm
Using an electric drive this truck would have 400Kw available all of time + being able to pull from the battery


----------



## Hollie Maea (Dec 9, 2009)

Duncan said:


> Gas turbines become MORE efficient as they get larger
> and 400Kw is 533Hp -
> Some (only a few) of today's truck engines exceed 600hp - BUT they only achieve that power at maximum rpm
> Using an electric drive this truck would have 400Kw available all of time + being able to pull from the battery


Exactly. The peak power of the truck is actually 1.5 Megawatts. With the turbine running, the battery can supply the other 1.1Megawatts. Of course as you drive this way, the battery SOC starts to drop. But there isn't a hill in the country long enough to deplete the batteries. And then of course you regen down the other side. With 80,000 lbs, regen starts to be a lot more significant.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

Hi Hollie

Is 1.5 Mw not just a wee bit of overkill?


----------



## Hollie Maea (Dec 9, 2009)

Duncan said:


> Hi Hollie
> 
> Is 1.5 Mw not just a wee bit of overkill?


They wanted to be able to go 65mph up a 6% grade with a 80,000 lb load.

Who am I to judge?


----------



## Caballus (Apr 2, 2017)

I don't think the trucking industry is aware of the big changes that are coming soon. Drivetrain technology for heavy trucks have been mostly stagnant for decades (more so than cars). I guess it is a consequence of an industry with only a few competitors (Cummings, CAT, International, Detroit, etc.) and very conservative customers. Brand loyalty is fierce in trucking, almost religious.

In the end, fleets demand efficiency. The manufacturer that brings a platform to market that delivers better performance with significant efficiency gains than current trucks will have a winner. We know it works, but convincing this industry is the hard part.


----------



## Kevin Sharpe (Jul 4, 2011)

Nikola One in Motion - "Behold, the 1,000 HP, zero emission Nikola One semi-truck in motion. Get ready for the pre-production units to hit fleets next year in 2019 for testing. The Nikola hydrogen electric trucks will take on any semi-truck and outperform them in every category; weight, acceleration, stopping, safety and features - all with a 500-1,000 mile range!"


----------



## Caballus (Apr 2, 2017)

I question the wisdom of using a fuel cell. The PEM in a typical stack undergoes severe degradation for such an expensive part. Also, the overall efficiency of the H2 cycle is quite low compared to just using an NG gas turbine like Capstone.

At least with NG, you are up running right away with a pervasive infrastructure. No need to risk success on a technology that has yet to prove viable in truck transport. When the batteries get better (and they will quickly) you just ditch the turbine for an ideal all battery solution.

H2 seems like a greenwashing gimmick cooked up by extraction industry to forestall pure BEV and provide a market for soon-to-be stranded assets.

I get the idea that it is more profitable to sell a device that forces the user to buy proprietary "fuel" forever. However, I think the fleets are wise to this trap.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

Kevin Sharpe said:


> Nikola One in Motion - "Behold, the 1,000 HP, zero emission Nikola One semi-truck in motion. Get ready for the pre-production units to hit fleets next year in 2019 for testing. The Nikola hydrogen electric trucks will take on any semi-truck and outperform them in every category; weight, acceleration, stopping, safety and features - all with a 500-1,000 mile range!"
> 
> IAToxJ9CGb8


I found it interesting that there is no real audio - just added music. Does the gear whine sound that bad?

More importantly, the truck is doing nothing that requires a working fuel cell, or even a large battery. It certainly isn't demonstrating 1,000 horsepower, or high performance in hauling weight, accelerating, or stopping. As far as I'm concerned, this is still a marketing prop - not a viable development mule, let alone anything close to production.

To be fair to Nikola Motor, the truck by the other company which has ripped off Nikola Tesla's name has not demonstrated high performance, either.


----------



## Kevin Sharpe (Jul 4, 2011)

Another big announcement due...

https://twitter.com/nikolamotor/status/969248251789524992


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

Kevin Sharpe said:


> Another big announcement due...
> 
> https://twitter.com/nikolamotor/status/969248251789524992


Ah, yes... the classic announcement-of-an-announcement to keep the stock value up.


----------



## Hollie Maea (Dec 9, 2009)

Kevin Sharpe said:


> Nikola One in Motion - "Behold, the 1,000 HP, zero emission Nikola One semi-truck in motion. Get ready for the pre-production units to hit fleets next year in 2019 for testing. The Nikola hydrogen electric trucks will take on any semi-truck and outperform them in every category; weight, acceleration, stopping, safety and features - all with a 500-1,000 mile range!"


Faked. This truck has never driven and probably never will. I'm guessing they had a pusher that they photoshopped out (which is pretty easy to do these days).


----------



## Karter2 (Nov 17, 2011)

brian_ said:


> ....To be fair to Nikola Motor, the truck by the other company which has ripped off Nikola Tesla's name has not demonstrated high performance, either.


 Not exactly high performance,....but the Tesla truck "working"....
https://www.instagram.com/p/BgCJlKbFckb/


----------



## Caballus (Apr 2, 2017)

Considering that hybrid drivetrains have been around for cars and locomotives for more than a decade, you would think all the current truck builders would have them.

Makes me think the point of their vehicles is oil consumption, not transportation.

This Nikola machine is just a thinly veiled attempt to create a natural gas consumption machine (via H2 reformation). They would consume less NG if they just build a hybrid drivetrain with a gas turbine genset.

But we know now that they start with the premise of building machines to provide a large market for their consumables. Transportation is just an afterthought for them.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

Caballus said:


> Considering that hybrid drivetrains have been around for cars and locomotives for more than a decade, you would think all the current truck builders would have them.


Hybrids provide their greatest advantage in urban stop-and-go situations; long-haul trucks are the opposite situation. There are short-haul hybrids; they don't make sufficient economic sense to be successful in the market, yet.



Caballus said:


> Makes me think the point of their vehicles is oil consumption, not transportation.


That's extraordinarily simplistic, and makes no sense. Companies buy trucks to do a job effectively, at minimum cost. Fuel consumption is part of both effectiveness (higher consumption means shorter range and/or less payload) and cost (obviously). Go ahead and build a truck which is cost-effective and uses less fuel; I assume you have billions of dollars for development. 



Caballus said:


> This Nikola machine is just a thinly veiled attempt to create a natural gas consumption machine (via H2 reformation). They would consume less NG if they just build a hybrid drivetrain with a gas turbine genset.


At least we agree that this design makes little if any technical sense, given the reality of the source of hydrogen. The natural gas turbine hybrid is Wrightspeed's design; they have targeted entirely different truck applications so far, where the technology makes more sense.
Wrightspeed


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

Karter2 said:


> Not exactly high performance,....but the Tesla truck "working"....
> https://www.instagram.com/p/BgCJlKbFckb/


Interesting ... real trailers! I wonder how much load they're carrying.

So, Tesla fans: where are the videos of 20-second 0-60 mph runs at 40 tons?


----------



## Coulomb (Apr 22, 2009)

brian_ said:


> Interesting ... real trailers! I wonder how much load they're carrying.


"Carrying battery packs". So if they're full, it would be quite a load; possibly at weight capacity without filling the entire volume.

But of course "packs" plural might mean as few as two


----------



## Caballus (Apr 2, 2017)

brian_ said:


> Hybrids provide their greatest advantage in urban stop-and-go situations; long-haul trucks are the opposite situation. There are short-haul hybrids; they don't make sufficient economic sense to be successful in the market, yet.


To that I say "freight locomotive". Long haul, heavy loads, constant speed. They do not have anything resembling a truck drivetrain. It is more like a hybrid. Same for hybrid cars. They are great for stop and go, but also better on the highway too.



brian_ said:


> That's extraordinarily simplistic, and makes no sense. Companies buy trucks to do a job effectively, at minimum cost. Fuel consumption is part of both effectiveness (higher consumption means shorter range and/or less payload) and cost (obviously). Go ahead and build a truck which is cost-effective and uses less fuel; I assume you have billions of dollars for development.


Auto and trucking companies make the vehicles they do because their drivetrains have what is know in economics as "a long tail". Long after the customer buys the vehicle, they keep coming back for parts, service and fuel where the real profit lies. No company would produce what customers really want, a reliable vehicle with low operating costs. Pretending that trucks represent the state-of-the-art is simplistic. They represent what is best for the vehicle manufacturers and oil companies, nothing more.

Consumers and trucking companies can only buy what is available. We don't have trucks because the customers demanded them. We have them because that is what is most profitable to produce, not most efficient.

It's a moot point anyway. Even hybrid's day has passed. Internal Combustion is dead man walking and only waiting for the battery development curve to deal the final blow. Judging by the rumors I hear, nobody will be making long term investments in older truck technology within 5 years.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

Caballus said:


> To that I say "freight locomotive". Long haul, heavy loads, constant speed. They do not have anything resembling a truck drivetrain. It is more like a hybrid.


It looks like a series hybrid, but they have no energy storage - just generator and motor used as a continuously variable transmission which can run at infinitely high reduction ratio... which is needed for a locomotive, and not for a truck. This has been possible for on-the-road trucks for a century, and has never made sense on a cost, efficiency, or weight basis. It has been used extensively off-road (such as in heavy mining haul trucks), but is not a clearly superior solution even there.



Caballus said:


> Same for hybrid cars. They are great for stop and go, but also better on the highway too.


Not really - few if any hybrids get better highway fuel economy than a conventional equivalent... at least not enough to justify the cost premium.



Caballus said:


> Auto and trucking companies make the vehicles they do because their drivetrains have what is know in economics as "a long tail". Long after the customer buys the vehicle, they keep coming back for parts, service and fuel where the real profit lies. No company would produce what customers really want, a reliable vehicle with low operating costs. Pretending that trucks represent the state-of-the-art is simplistic. They represent what is best for the vehicle manufacturers and oil companies, nothing more.


Ah, the conspiracy theory: everything is manipulated by the oil companies!  No, it's not.

They are the state of the art. The art is providing a vehicle which people will buy, and they won't buy trucks twice as expensive as they need. Trucks - like any other vehicle - have been getting more powerful, more efficient, and more reliable with less of that maintenance that the manufacturers are supposedly maximizing. 



Caballus said:


> It's a moot point anyway. Even hybrid's day has passed. Internal Combustion is dead man walking and only waiting for the battery development curve to deal the final blow. Judging by the rumors I hear, nobody will be making long term investments in older truck technology within 5 years.


Yep, and we'll all be going to work in flying cars, just like Popular Mechanics told us in 1960 that we would be doing by 1970!


----------



## Caballus (Apr 2, 2017)

brian_ said:


> .. at least not enough to justify the cost premium.


Ahh, the "cost premium". That old fiction. Try this exercise: Build an Internal Combustion engine from scratch. Repeat for an electric motor and associated electronics. Then tell me what is more expensive. I'll give you a hint, the EV was invented first and people have been building them for decades in their garages.

If you build enough of something, the cost comes down. It's called economies of scale. The first engine built was more expensive and complicated than the first electric motor.

Historically, the first cars were EV. If it had enjoyed the same resources of R&D as ICE we would be much better off today without all the problems of the oil industry.

Historically, oil was discovered first, but had no practical purpose other than lamp light (kerosene). The engine was created to serve as a "customer" for the oil. 

From an engineering standpoint, we should have stuck with the EV. From a business standpoint, the ICE has a longer tail. That's the only reason for its success. It's always been inferior.



brian_ said:


> Ah, the conspiracy theory: everything is manipulated by the oil companies!  No, it's not.


The oil lobbyists in DC would belay that argument. BTW, if ICE is so much better, why does it still enjoy so much subsidies compared to alternatives?

The best analogy would be horse racing. The only horses that win the Kentucky Derby are thoroughbreds with great pedigrees. Therefore, one could reason they are the best horses for that race. However, only thoroughbreds with great pedigrees are ALLOWED to race in the Derby. It is circular logic and self-fulfilling.

Like the Derby, we will never know which technology would have been best for the past 100 years since only ICE has been ALLOWED on the roads. However, we will soon know what is the best technology for the next 100 years.


----------



## Karter2 (Nov 17, 2011)

The electric car lost out to the ICE when people became aware how cheap ICE's were (Fords Model "T") and how much further they could go on a small amount of liquid fuel.
Practicality and cost only were the reasons
The main handicap back then for the electric vehicle was , and still is, the weight and cost of the battery, together with its range restricting effects.
Without the "green" movement, the EV would still be a rare specialised transport option.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

Caballus said:


> Ahh, the "cost premium". That old fiction. Try this exercise: Build an Internal Combustion engine from scratch. Repeat for an electric motor and associated electronics. Then tell me what is more expensive.


I notice that "battery" was omitted, unless it is "associated electronics". That's just about like leaving the engine out of the cost estimate for a conventional vehicle.

I'll use Tesla for an example, only because they don't build those evil fossil-fueled machines. They sell their cars for a higher price than comparable cars with gas engines, they have no development expense (because induction motors have been around as long as electric cars, and Panasonic makes the batteries) and yet they lose money so fast that it has become sensible to round it to the nearest 0.1 billion dollars per year... so if the parts are so cheap, where is all that massive profit going - is Elon embezzling it all to buy petrochemical fuel for SpaceX rockets?

I'm kidding, of course: Telsa Motors is just unprofitable due to high component costs and general lack of automotive industry competence, and Elon Musk is just a salesman who isn't stealing anything... but SpaceX rockets _do_ burn petroleum products (why not hydrogen?).


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

Caballus said:


> Historically, the first cars were EV.
> ...
> Historically, oil was discovered first, but had no practical purpose other than lamp light (kerosene). The engine was created to serve as a "customer" for the oil.


That's a pretty inventive view of history. Is the world flat or round in your book?  Early cars were steam, electric, and engine-driven. The first internal combustion engines were built decades before any car, and before distilled petroleum fuels were available. By the time internal combustion engines became popular, steam engines had long been in service... burning wood, coal, and petroleum fuels.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

Caballus said:


> The best analogy would be horse racing. The only horses that win the Kentucky Derby are thoroughbreds with great pedigrees. Therefore, one could reason they are the best horses for that race. However, only thoroughbreds with great pedigrees are ALLOWED to race in the Derby. It is circular logic and self-fulfilling.
> 
> Like the Derby, we will never know which technology would have been best for the past 100 years since only ICE has been ALLOWED on the roads. However, we will soon know what is the best technology for the next 100 years.


I'm pretty sure that vehicles not burning fossil fuels *are* allowed... there seem to be many thousands of them by most major manufacturers running around the streets on most continents, complete with legal registrations, and no one is hunting them down and pulling them off the road. Most of them exist only because governments force auto manufacturers to build them, which seems to me like the very antithesis of disallowing them.

Not only are hybrids and EVs allowed, but the subject here was trucks and the allegation was that all makes should have hybrids available but some bogeyman is keeping them out of the market... and that's not true. You can buy a Hino 195h (suitable for short-haul applications where hybrid makes sense), but they're not popular. A decade ago Freightliner offered a hybrid in the M2 series (see brochure) - even offering it as a motorhome chassis (the ecoFRED) - and they were still shipping the trucks in 2014, but eventually gave up - obviously, the trucking world didn't beat a path to their door. Eaton, Allison, and others offer hybrid systems for heavy vehicles, but essentially no one buys them any application except for buses.

As for incentives... to the individual vehicle operator, electrical energy is cheaper than energy from any fossil fuel, and electricity is not taxed nearly as heavily as fuels for road use. Whatever you think is going on at a corporate taxation level, the individual user of a gasoline or diesel fueled vehicle is subsidizing (by fuel taxes) the individual user of an electrically powered vehicle (who does not pay those taxes); vehicle purchase subsidies for electric and hybrid vehicles are in addition to that. A truck buyer is motivated to take advantage of those subsidies and the energy cost advantage for an electric vehicle, but only if the rest of the package works out... and it typically does not.

In the unlikely event that the Nikola Motors truck works out to be useful, it will succeed. If it is only barely functional, but is actually produced, it will still sell a few to corporations who want it for image purposes.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

Karter2 said:


> The electric car lost out to the ICE when people became aware how cheap ICE's were (Fords Model "T") and how much further they could go on a small amount of liquid fuel.
> Practicality and cost only were the reasons
> The main handicap back then for the electric vehicle was , and still is, the weight and cost of the battery, together with its range restricting effects.
> Without the "green" movement, the EV would still be a rare specialised transport option.


Exactly!


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

_Telsa Motors is just unprofitable due to high component costs and general lack of automotive industry competence,_
Nope wrong again - they are making about 25% on each car sold
Don't confuse money spent on improving a production process with the unit cost of the cars 

_SpaceX rockets do burn petroleum products (why not hydrogen?)_.
And where do you think the hydrogen would come from?


----------



## Caballus (Apr 2, 2017)

Wow, the Koch Bros. are bringing their revisionist history here. 

Brian, in case you are not aware, this whole message board proves you are full of it.

If the clever folks here can make all this EV work on a shoestring for decades, what is the excuse of the major car and truck manufacturers? Go check the cost curves of all the components including the batteries. You really think those numbers are stopping anytime soon. You must be one of those folks who though a 21" LCD TV would cost $10k forever. Oh brother! Go back to the 90's pal.

Go read some Upton Sinclair if you doubt the history of Big Oil. The collaboration of the government and oil industry is legendary and documented in the annals of law. The success of Internal Combustion is ONLY due to the intervention of government at the behest of oil companies. If this was tin foil hat stuff, there wouldn't be plenty of Supreme Court cases to read about over the past 100 years. Get your head out of the sand.

http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/

The crew on these boards are proving that you can buy an EV and never have to deal with the car manufacturers again for anything, especially the fuel. That is what we want here. Go peddle your stinky fluids to the gullible. 

I'm afraid this thread has gone off the rails into politics. I'll leave with my original thesis. Nikola is just a desperate attempt to keep the oil/gas train going. I'm pretty sure transportation customers are done with this nonsense.


----------



## Caballus (Apr 2, 2017)

Duncan said:


> _Telsa Motors is just unprofitable due to high component costs and general lack of automotive industry competence,_
> Nope wrong again - they are making about 25% on each car sold
> Don't confuse money spent on improving a production process with the unit cost of the cars
> 
> ...


Exactly, all of Tesla's profits go into the factories to make the next gen products. I like how the Tesla haters forget that buying factories and equipment and investing in IP adds to the book value of the company.

Of course basic economics and business logic gets in the way of their pro-oil agenda.

Cars work fine on non-fossil energy, but rockets still need fuel. If we didn't unnecessarily burn all the oil in the world for cars, that would leave a lot of cheap oil for rockets, which means more cheap launches and orbital services. See how that works?


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

Duncan said:


> > Telsa Motors is just unprofitable due to high component costs and general lack of automotive industry competence,
> 
> 
> Nope wrong again - they are making about 25% on each car sold
> Don't confuse money spent on improving a production process with the unit cost of the cars


"Improving the production process"? I don't think many buy that, given the ineffective production process that they have, and the lack of capital assets to support the investments, but perhaps.

More importantly, we agree that EV components are not so inherently inexpensive as some claim. 



Duncan said:


> > SpaceX rockets do burn petroleum products (why not hydrogen?)
> 
> 
> And where do you think the hydrogen would come from?


From the same magic land of unicorns and fairy dust as the electricity that goes into EVs 

But seriously, hydrogen can be made by electrolysis using electrical power from whatever green/renewable source your prefer; of course it normally comes from natural gas because that is less expensive. Even that would be better than what SpaceX rockets burn... but this isn't a serious subject for DIY EV... just a humourous shot at Saint Elon in the ridiculous vein of the preceding posts.


----------



## Caballus (Apr 2, 2017)

Brian,

For someone with decent EV posts elsewhere on this board, you really seem to have it in for Tesla. I usually don't see that level of venom outside of the investment boards trying to short the stock.

Don't try to cross someone that can land rockets.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

The Nikola Motors truck is hard to justify technically, but even harder to write off as an attempt to keep burning fossil fuels, as their currently proposed product is hydrogen-fuelled. The previous proposal burned natural gas (in a turbine), but they changed their minds. Sure, the hydrogen comes from steam reformation of natural gas, but the fantasy which goes with products like this is that it will be made by electrolysis of water using renewably-sourced electricity or thermochemical processes driven by solar heat.



Caballus said:


> The crew on these boards are proving that you can buy an EV and never have to deal with the car manufacturers again for anything, especially the fuel.


There are lots of great DIY projects in this forum, and they are built mostly of parts from those very automotive manufacturers, plus a contribution from old forklifts (many of which come from the same companies, such as Toyota).
Car manufacturers do not supply fuel.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

Caballus said:


> Don't try to cross someone that can land rockets.


Elon Musk can't land a rocket. SpaceX can, which is an impressive technical achievement, but not really surprising given the technology available to them. Landing tail-sitting rockets and jets has been going on for half a century (that's how the Apollo moon lander worked; experimental aircraft such as the Ryan X-13 Vertijet did it even earlier), although the Falcon sets a new level for scale and use in Earth's gravity.

I think if people understood the technology (automotive or aerospace), instead of just swallowing the hype, they would still be impressed but they would be impressed by the much larger group of people who have actually done the work (not just famous investors), and would be in a better position to make decisions. They would not be so impressed by the Nikola Motors truck.


----------



## Caballus (Apr 2, 2017)

Ideas are a dime-a-dozen, execution is the hard part.


----------



## Karter2 (Nov 17, 2011)

Ideas are a dime a dozen...
But having the right idea is worth a fortune !


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

Karter2 said:


> Ideas are a dime a dozen...
> But having the right idea is worth a fortune !


Disagree - there are millions of "right ideas" that have never been worth tuppence 

Without the execution - not worth a sausage

But even a bad idea once it's executed can make money


----------



## Karter2 (Nov 17, 2011)

Duncan said:


> Disagree - there are millions of "right ideas" that have never been worth tuppence ....


...obviously not the right ideas then ?!
A bad idea , even well executed, can never give the best result

One of the things that makes any idea a "right idea" is the ability for its benefits to be recognised and implimented effectively, and economicaly
Ideas like introducing cane toads to control cane beetles were "clever" and well implimented....but not the "right" idea !


----------



## Caballus (Apr 2, 2017)

Yep, in much the same way that extracting oil. natural gas, or coal, polluting land and oceans, poisoning everyone with lead, mercury and particulate emissions, then possibly irreparably damaging the climate is a clever idea.

I think we are already finding out it wasn't the right idea.

Modern business has always been about privatizing the benefits and socializing the costs.


----------



## Karter2 (Nov 17, 2011)

Sure, but life is full of compromises.
Fire, and burning fossil fuels, was fundamental to the development of civilisation.
And , its still pretty limiting to try to even maintain existing living standards without continuing to do so.


----------



## Caballus (Apr 2, 2017)

That story is still playing out.

People naturally assume that industrialization was "necessary". Try telling that to tribal cultures that have been happily existing for thousands of years.

It remains to be seen if this Faustian bargain will play out in the long term favor of humans. Remember, this fossil fuel experiment has only been in process for about 100 years. Contrast that with 100,000 years of human existence. 

It is the height of hubris to think that a decision made 100 years ago was necessary in the face of an already thriving human population that existed fine for millennia. That decision was made to maximize the profits of a tiny fraction of the world's population.

In other words, we may have mortgaged the future of the entire human race for the 100 year comfort of a few.


----------



## Karter2 (Nov 17, 2011)

��. 100 years ago ??
Ever heard of the "Bronze Age"?...3000+ BC !
Burning fossil fuels has been used by humans for thousands of years to make tools, wepons, cook, as well as for heat to enable them to migrate and live in cold regeons that would otherwise not be possible.
Even the oldest known civilisations (60k+ yrs Abororiginals) used fire to clear and rejuvinate the land.

I would suggest you continue the GW rant on the Global Warming thread in chit chat.


----------



## Caballus (Apr 2, 2017)

Drawing an equivalence between hunter/gatherer campfires and the industrial scale burning we have had for the past 100 years is naive and ignorant.

You are right. This rant does not belong here.


----------



## Kevin Sharpe (Jul 4, 2011)

Kevin Sharpe said:


> Another big announcement due...


https://twitter.com/nikolamotor/status/979429808248516608


----------



## Caballus (Apr 2, 2017)

My prediction on the NG/H2 boondoggle:

1. Cost per mile will ultimately doom the technology.
2. NG Reforming at the dispenser will fail when the locals find out they have a NG refinery in their backyard. Oops, nobody told them they are shifting the entire carbon load of a fleet of trucks into their local gas stations.
3. Fuel Cells are more delicate/expensive and less reliable than people realize. Over the road trucking will punish those systems.
4. Carbon tax looming, see #1.
5. The upfront cost of a fuel cell vehicle and H2 infrastructure is much larger than the same for BEV. Projected out 20 years, there is no comparison. Remember, when making a long term business decision, you use PROJECTED costs, not today's.

H2 is just a thinly veiled attempt to preserve the investment in the extraction industry. Greenwashing that dirty industry will not work when the alternatives are already here.

But, hey, the last time the extraction industry needed a leg up, they just bought the politicians (see Teapot Dome). Maybe it will work again this time.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

Caballus said:


> My prediction on the NG/H2 boondoggle:
> 
> 1. ...
> 2. NG Reforming at the dispenser will fail when the locals find out they have a NG refinery in their backyard. Oops, nobody told them they are shifting the entire carbon load of a fleet of trucks into their local gas stations.
> ...


That makes sense for hydrogen fuel from natural gas, which is the current system. The Nikola Motor scheme is based on the silly idea of locally (at the dispensing station) producing hydrogen for fuel from electricity.


----------



## Caballus (Apr 2, 2017)

brian_ said:


> ... producing hydrogen for fuel from electricity.


Not going to happen. The cost per mile making H2 from electricity is enormous and inefficient. But I guess that has been the whole plan all along. 

The business model of H2 is the same as petroleum: "Make a machine that consumes as much of the juice only we sell." 

How much you want to bet that any electricity used to make this Nikola H2 will be derived mostly from coal and NG?

They are not fooling (fueling?) anyone.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

Caballus said:


> How much you want to bet that any electricity used to make this Nikola H2 will be derived mostly from coal and NG?.


Not all of it, but averaged over the country (this is a U.S. company) 2/3rds of electricity is fossil-fueled... 1/3 from each fuel.
U.S. Energy Information Administration: _Energy Explained_ > _Secondary Sources_ > _Electricity_ > Electricity in the U.S.

This is equally relevant to battery EVs.


----------



## Caballus (Apr 2, 2017)

*sigh* I expected much more from this forum. 

1. Electricity sources are region specific. 
2. The conversion efficiency from electricity to hydrogen to fuel cell to electricity again is abysmal. There is no debate about the efficiency of charging Li-Ion directly.
3. By the time any semblance of an H2 fueling infrastructure is created, BEV energy density will exceed H2. 

Just math, just saying.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

Caballus said:


> 1. Electricity sources are region specific.


Yes, and the proposed network is widely dispersed (as it would need to be)... so the electrical energy sources will be necessarily disparate.

Caballus, you seem to assume that I am promoting Nikola Motor as a viable company offering a desirable product, and you need to argue with me. I'm not - I think the whole hydrogen fuel cell truck idea is ridiculous; I'm only answering questions and addressing misinformation.


----------



## Caballus (Apr 2, 2017)

brian_ said:


> I think the whole hydrogen fuel cell truck idea is ridiculous;.


We agree on that.


----------



## Kevin Sharpe (Jul 4, 2011)

Caballus said:


> Just math, just saying.


Electric car world record, just saying.

Dutchmen drive 2.888 km in 24 hours on hydrogen


----------



## Caballus (Apr 2, 2017)

Kevin Sharpe said:


> Dutchmen drive 2.888 km in 24 hours on hydrogen


Yes, and you can use H2 to send a rocket to Mars. That doesn't prove it is practical compared to BEV. 

Cost/Mile. Math. Can't escape it.


----------



## Kevin Sharpe (Jul 4, 2011)

Caballus said:


> Cost/Mile. Math. Can't escape it.


We are already paying people in Germany to use excess renewable electricity... when prices are negative you need to rethink your cost/mile maths 

Oh, and last time I checked in the UK, it's cheaper for me to use petrol on a trip than electricity from commercial rapid charging locations. Indeed, I must check Tesla pricing now they've broken yet another promise 

Tesla increases cost of using its Supercharger stations, still says it ‘will never be a profit center’


----------



## Caballus (Apr 2, 2017)

Kevin Sharpe said:


> We are already paying people in Germany to use excess renewable electricity... when prices are negative you need to rethink your cost/mile maths


Don't know what you are implying other than the promise of unlimited free energy is being realized and the energy supply industry hates this. I only see this from the value proposition for the consumer. I don't subscribe to the "What's good for the corporations is good for the consumer" supply-side economic theories that are relics of the 1980's.



Kevin Sharpe said:


> Oh, and last time I checked in the UK, it's cheaper for me to use petrol on a trip than electricity from commercial rapid charging locations. Indeed, I must check Tesla pricing now they've broken yet another promise


Of course petrol is cheaper right now. It's called "unaccounted externalities". When a petrol user doesn't pay for using the sky as an open sewer, it easy to sell petrol as the better fuel. You really think that free ride will still be going in 20 years?



Kevin Sharpe said:


> Tesla increases cost of using its Supercharger stations, still says it ‘will never be a profit center’


I guess you are short Tesla stock or just hate Elon personally.


----------



## Karter2 (Nov 17, 2011)

Caballus said:


> Don't know what you are implying other than the promise of unlimited free energy is being realized and the energy supply industry hates this. .......


 Unlimited free energy ???
.. But yes, its still only a "promise"..!
Currently , wind & Solar supply less than 1% of the worlds energy consumption.
Infact, to the nearest whole number, its actually 0% 

Oh yes, and Germany has one of the worlds highest electricity prices, and despite hundreds of billions of Euros spent on wind and solar generation, it has almost no impact on its carbon footprint.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

Karter2 said:


> Unlimited free energy ???
> .. But yes, its still only a "promise"..!
> Currently , wind & Solar supply less than 1% of the worlds energy consumption.
> Infact, to the nearest whole number, its actually 0%


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption

This has your "wind & Solar supply less than 1%" as 6.3% and that was 4 years ago

Just a wee bit more than 1% and growing fastest of all

If we include Hydro then it goes up to 24%


----------



## Karter2 (Nov 17, 2011)

"That page" (Wiki) has a lot of information,.. 
Such as that 6.3% is RE portion of electricity generation rather than total energy consumption. 
It also states that electricity is 18% of total energy ....



> In 2016 while total world energy came from 80% fossil fuels, 10% biofuels, 5% nuclear and 5% renewable (hydro, wind, solar, geothermal), only 18% of that total world energy was in the form of electricity....


So that 6.3% suddenly becomes 1.13% of total energy
And that 1.3% still includes biomass, geothermal, marine power, etc..
..hence you see where the "less than 1% " figure comes from .


Worse still, most of this electricity data is based on "generation" information , which is totally useless without consideration of the capacity factors particularly for Solar (11%) and wind ( 25-30%) , which would dramatically reduce those numbers further.
Anyone wanting a significant amount of energy from wind or solar will need a lot of time, patience, money, and faith in the weather being favourable.


BUT,..the real point is ...none of this is "free energy".
The raw energy source (wind , sunshine or water) may be free, but the equipment and facilities required to convert that energy into a useable form (eg, electricity) is far from free, and infact the introduction of these intermittent power sources also increases the cost of generating power from conventional sources.
None of the countries that have embraced a significant proportion of wind or solar power have benefited from a reduction in electricity costs,.....very much the oposite !


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

Caballus said:


> Don't know what you are implying other than the promise of unlimited free energy is being realized...





Karter2 said:


> Unlimited free energy ???
> .. But yes, its still only a "promise"..!
> Currently , wind & Solar supply less than 1% of the worlds energy consumption.





Duncan said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption
> 
> This has your "wind & Solar supply less than 1%" as 6.3% and that was 4 years ago...


Although that article quotes 6.3% as the wind and solar contribution to electrical energy production, as fossil fuels are eliminated from the huge non-electrical energy production, electricity demand will increase (e.g. people driving EVs) and that contribution will represent an even smaller fraction.

Regardless of the actual fraction of energy from these sources, they are very far from free. There's no fuel cost to operating solar, wind, or hydro, but there are still operational costs, and there are huge capital costs for assets with limited lifespans.


----------



## Karter2 (Nov 17, 2011)

brian_ said:


> Although that article quotes 6.3% as the wind and solar contribution to energy production, .............


 Just to be clear, that 6.3% is the contribution to ELECTRICITY generation from all renewable sources other than hydro.
..( and very debateable!)


----------



## Caballus (Apr 2, 2017)

The current allocation of renewables to the world energy supply has nothing to do with its viability and mostly due to the fact that we have (as a world) allocated ALL of our resources to the extraction industry. 

Technology does not advance by itself. It needs to be cultivated. Combustion based energy is so pervasive because that is what we cultivated for the past 100 years. It is strictly a supply-side decision to maximize corporate profits over consumer value with no regard for unaccounted externalities.


----------



## Karter2 (Nov 17, 2011)

Resources tend to be concentrated on those areas that give the best return relative to the need ...be that either financially, technically, or any other priority.
IE, taking the "low hanging fruit" first before working up the tree of reduced returns.
Most wind and solar are only viable because of the incentives, rebates, grants , and guaranteed sales prices, that they benefit from.


----------



## Caballus (Apr 2, 2017)

Karter2 said:


> Resources tend to be concentrated on those areas that give the best return relative to the need ...be that either financially, technically, or any other priority.
> IE, taking the "low hanging fruit" first before working up the tree of reduced returns.
> Most wind and solar are only viable because of the incentives, rebates, grants , and guaranteed sales prices, that they benefit from.


Don't get me started on the 100 years of subsidies for oil, coal, gas.

You statement is only true in a perfectly competitive market. Once established, it is very easy for the extraction industry to exclude all competitors (purchase politicians, property, IP, etc). They teach this in Business 101.

People forget that oil was discovered first. It had little value other than for refining into kersosene lamp oil (limited demand). The gasoline engine in the US was created soak up this oil (and run the already existing electric car out of business). 

The consumer had no choice in this. They bought what the market presented. Although the electric car had value to city dwellers, the companies were purchased and closed to make room for gasoline engines. Gasoline was/is just more profitable to sell rather than electricity. This was a supply-side decision, not a market decision. 

In economics, a market only exists when there is choice on BOTH sides. For the first time in 100 years, consumers now have choice and are clearly choosing EV. As EVs move into lower price points, they will sell as well as they do in the higher. If subsidies were ever removed from oil, gasoline demand would evaporate faster than it already is.

100 years of the oil economy has created a false knowledge of how we got here. However, a simple review of history and how oil became the fuel of choice prove otherwise. Never underestimate the power of profit to motivate and incumbency to dominate. But make no mistake, the easy way (oil) happens by default, the best way (EV) happens by intention.


----------



## Karter2 (Nov 17, 2011)

Electric cars died in the early 1900s for much the same reasons they are still struggling.
Cost....H. Ford's mass production techniques dropped the cost of cars dramatically using cheap components and cheap IC engines 
Battery limitations...cost, .size , weight, capacity, ( and hence range), were all hugely limiting the electric car to be a city only vehicle. Electricity and charging facilities were also limited.
Gasoline , removed all those limitations, making intercity and country travel viable and cheap.
The market chose the most suitable option.

Let me know when you figure out how/when a viable electric driven transcontinental airliner , or a economical, practical, trans-ocean bulk carrier or container carrier ship , is ready for commercial operation.!
And unless you missed it.....EVs are only successfull in markets where they are heavily subsidised !!
Be careful of the source of your history information.


----------



## Kevin Sharpe (Jul 4, 2011)

Nel ASA Receives Additional Orders from Nikola Motors for Hydrogen Fueling Stations


----------



## Caballus (Apr 2, 2017)

I am confident the current trend of EVs will continue. The only "struggle" I see is Tesla trying to keep up with demand. If the other automakers actually wanted BEV, they could soak up some of this demand, but they are still clients to the oil industry. Again, the primary purpose of the machines that GM, Ford, etc. make are to burn gasoline, not provide maximum value to the consumer. If they really wanted to provide value to the consumer, they would have produced machines that burn less gasoline over the decades. It has already been proven you can improve performance and efficiency in any car just by adding an electric motor. Yet, they only do this in their least desirable cars like a Prius. People hate hybrids because it is a Prius, not because the tech doesn't work. It is a form of self-sabotage to create a narrative that consumers "prefer" gas-guzzlers. 

If current market size is your criteria for success, then H2 is a complete failure. It's size and trend is dwarfed by BEV and show no signs of improving. It is strictly a project financed entirely by a dying industry as a last ditched attempt to provide a market for NG. Again, this is supply-side economics at work. 

Demand-side economics (where the best technology wins) only happens when the consumer has a CHOICE. Until recently, the consumer has not been able to choose BEV, so you can't say ICE "won". It's like showing up to play a baseball game, but the other team couldn't make it. You win by default, but you can't claim to be better than the other team until you actually play the game. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

It is ironic you guys are carrying water for Big Oil and H2 on this site. I would assume your senior status here implies you understand the superiority of EV tech over fuel-based systems. Research into H2 automotive technology has largely been abandoned, EXCEPT by the extraction industry. But they are between a rock and a hard place. As oil/NG prices decline, this hurts profits, less money to fund H2, less incentive for consumer to use H2 due to high costs. As Oil/NG prices rise, the competition from BEV is too high and undercuts H2.

Since you like to post links sponsored by the extraction industry, here is one former H2 researcher that has seen the light.

http://energypost.eu/hydrogen-fuel-cell-cars-competitive-hydrogen-fuel-cell-expert/


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

Hi Caballus 
Senior just means time and posting

It's NOT related to ability or knowledge!


----------



## Caballus (Apr 2, 2017)

Duncan said:


> Hi Caballus
> Senior just means time and posting
> 
> It's NOT related to ability or knowledge!



Thanks, I forgot to turn on the /sarcasm tag


----------



## Hollie Maea (Dec 9, 2009)

Nikola didn't choose Hydrogen because it's clean; Trevor couldn't care less. They chose it because their Natural Gas partner bailed on them. So if it's cheaper for them to use fossil fuel based H2, that's what they will ultimately do.


----------



## Karter2 (Nov 17, 2011)

Caballus said:


> I am confident the current trend of EVs will continue. The only "struggle" I see is Tesla trying to keep up with demand. If the other automakers actually wanted BEV, they could soak up some of this demand


 The latest figures for Q1 2018, show Tesla producing more than they are selling..ie, building stock of S and X models. Only M3 ( their cheapest car!) has a backlog of orders , but that is because Tesla built an order book 2 years before they built a car.....and now cannot produce more than a few hundred a week !
Nearly every other automaker in the world has an EV in production (Toyota are the notable exception with only Hybrids), and i am not aware of any shortage of supply, or surging demand !
. Maybe if you want a specific colour, style of wheels, special trim, then yes, you wont get it this week, but otherwise there are Tesla's , Leafs , Bolts, and I3's etc sitting in showrooms.
But, as i said before, they are not popular because of high cost (even after rebates), range limitations , recharge restrictions , etc etc.


----------



## Caballus (Apr 2, 2017)

I am still waiting for the other manufacturers to produce something in quantity similar to Model S, X or 3. They have had 10 years to think it through and use their "superior" production processes to compete. So far the best one out there is the Bolt? GM doesn't even make the important parts on that.

All car manufacturers have targeted their EVs and Hybrids for low margin consumers first and failed. Hmm, wonder why? Maybe cement the idea that EVs are crappy in the eyes of their customers, while still looking good to government mandates?

Tesla targeted the high margin, luxury first to cement the idea that EV is PREMIUM and is gradually moving downmarket. They don't even need to advertise to convince someone of its value.

If all you want to do is sell fuel and parts, you will never build a desirable EV, but you really need to advertise like hell to convince everyone that a noisy, stinky machine is what they want.

Nikola will have the same problem. All they want to do is sell NG/H2. It's the tail wagging the dog. Consumers don't work like that anymore.


----------



## Karter2 (Nov 17, 2011)

You seem to overlook the Leaf, or Volt, Prius, Camry and various other hybrids, all of which reduce the demand for fossil fuel and have been sales successes.
Auto manufacturers are businesses, whose primary objective is to maximise returns for shareholders, ..not satisfy minority fantasies idealistic ideas.
In order to succeed they have to produce vehicles that the majority of their customer base will buy in volume...IE ...comfortable , effective, reliable , economical, and cheap.
Sure there is a market for EVs, but there is a much bigger market for gas (and diesel) powered SUVs, and pick ups at half the price. !



> ...Bolt...GM doesnt even make the important parts on that ...


Q: What is most important in an EV ?.
A: . Battery ?
Q: Who makes the battery cells for Tesla ? 
A: Panasonic 
That is just the nature of modern manufacturing.


----------



## Caballus (Apr 2, 2017)

Karter2 said:


> You seem to overlook the Leaf, or Volt, Prius, Camry and various other hybrids,


The audience for those vehicles is strictly efficiency minded. the audience for a car like a Tesla is efficiency, style, technology, and performance, which encompasses a lot more. Notice that other than BMW recently, hybrids were not targeted beyond what was necessary to satisfy the efficiency shopper. Car manufacturers did not want to cannibalize sales on higher profit vehicles that already had tooling for strict ICE drivetrain.



Karter2 said:


> Auto manufacturers are businesses, whose primary objective is to maximise returns for shareholders, ..not satisfy minority fantasies idealistic ideas.


Exactly! As a consumer do you want to satisfy the investors or your fantasies?



Karter2 said:


> In order to succeed they have to produce vehicles that the majority of their customer base will buy in volume...IE ...comfortable , effective, reliable , economical, and cheap.
> Sure there is a market for EVs, but there is a much bigger market for gas (and diesel) powered SUVs, and pick ups at half the price. !


Nokia thought the same thing about its consumers back when they were the most popular phone. Apple decided to make a purely user-centric device. It's easy to think you are doing it right when you are the only game in town. Doesn't mean you are right. Success is only proof nobody has stolen your customer, yet.



Karter2 said:


> Q: What is most important in an EV ?...


Actually, Tesla's name is on the cells and is a collaboration with Panasonic. Tesla designed and manufactures the pack which is the "secret sauce" to its success. Tesla has much more control over its battery supply than any other car maker.

For the Bolt and other derivatives, LG makes the cells, pack, inverter and motor, essentially the whole drivetrain. GM has yet to prove it is serious about competing in this space. 

That said, I own a LEAF, thinking about switching to a Bolt, but will eventually get a Tesla. 

Anytime you add an electric motor to a gas car, it makes it better all around. Want to make it even better? Drop the engine, it's really been holding back cars for 100 years.


----------



## Karter2 (Nov 17, 2011)

Caballus said:


> ....As a consumer do you want to satisfy the investors or your fantasies?


 Like most consumers, i want to satisfy my needs for reliable , affordable transport.!
Fantasies are for those with more money than sense.



> Actually, Tesla's name is on the cells and is a collaboration with Panasonic. Tesla designed and manufactures the pack which is the "secret sauce" to its success. Tesla has much more control over its battery supply than any other car maker.


 Actually There is no name , or any other marking, on the Panasonic made cells as used by Tesla to identify them.
Panasonic has a contract with Tesla to supply cells (produced in Japan/Asia) for the S &X models...and also own the facility in Sparks to produce the M3 cells.
Again , a conventional supplier/customer arrangement. Nothing unusual for a supplier to have production facilities at the customer premisies.
I think you will find that Nissan fully own and operate, the battery production plants for their EVs
And BYD also own/operate their battery production.



> ...Anytime you add an electric motor to a gas car, it makes it better all around. Want to make it even better? Drop the engine, it's really been holding back cars for 100 years.


 Cars ,trucks, busses, trains, aircraft, ships, etc etc...seem to have worked out pretty well considering they have been held back so long.
As i said earlier, let me know when there is a commercially available intercontinental airliner, or a ocean going container ship, etc.
I suspect batteries will be holding those back for a few years into the future.


----------



## Caballus (Apr 2, 2017)

Well, since this discussion is starting to repeat itself, I will only say that I am putting my money on the future, not the past. After driving a Tesla, I can't see going back to ICE. Even my LEAF puts a smile on my face everyday on the highway on-ramp.

I'll leave the gas engines to the hipsters overcome with nostalgia.

Since this thread is no longer relevant to the original Nikola discussion, best to pick it up elsewhere.


----------



## Kevin Sharpe (Jul 4, 2011)

Caballus said:


> Since this thread is no longer relevant to the original Nikola discussion, best to pick it up elsewhere.


So lets focus on the fact that the Nikola One is an electric vehicle and it's relevant to the DIY Electric Car forum because at some point we will get access to parts from H2 vehicles 

In other news, great to see Nikola making the investment in plant and 2,000 jobs in Phoenix;

Truck-making Tesla rival bringing 2,000 jobs to Phoenix


----------



## Caballus (Apr 2, 2017)

I'm going to go out on a limb and predict they never break ground on this plant.

We have not even seen the prototype in the flesh yet and they have a plant design already? That's not how it's done. 

There won't be any useful parts in a H2 vehicle other than the motors, batteries and electronics. Fuel cells degrade quickly. Also, I will never be able to produce H2 in my backyard. It is not truly DIY if I am tethered to a fuel I can't produce myself.

I'll stick with solar, batteries and BEV. I can survive long into the future with that arrangement.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

Kevin Sharpe said:


> So lets focus on the fact that the Nikola One is an electric vehicle and it's relevant to the DIY Electric Car forum because at some point we will get access to parts from H2 vehicles...


Good point: regardless of the source of the electrical power, it is converted to mechanical power by motors. On the other hand, I don't know if that is useful, because they motors will not likely be unique to Nikola (Tesla is apparently intending to use Model 3 motors in their Semi) and they will be packaged in axle assemblies which are useful only to those building heavy-duty vehicles... great if planning a large electric motorhome, I suppose.


----------



## Hollie Maea (Dec 9, 2009)

brian_ said:


> Good point: regardless of the source of the electrical power, it is converted to mechanical power by motors. On the other hand, I don't know if that is useful, because they motors will not likely be unique to Nikola (Tesla is apparently intending to use Model 3 motors in their Semi) and they will be packaged in axle assemblies which are useful only to those building heavy-duty vehicles... great if planning a large electric motorhome, I suppose.


The motors they are using are Remy HVH410s, which really are too big diameter for most purposes. And they are cartridges built into the gearboxes, which are definitely too big to use for anything else.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

Hollie Maea said:


> The motors they are using are Remy HVH410s, which really are too big diameter for most purposes. And they are cartridges built into the gearboxes, which are definitely too big to use for anything else.


Excellent info - thanks for sharing that 

That confirms that the Nikola Motor product won't introduce any new motor product to the market, although more vehicles using these motors would eventually mean more available in salvage.

Remy was purchased by BorgWarner, so the manufacturer's product page is now HVH Series Electric Motor, for anyone interested in more information.

Most of the HVH motors which have been produced are probably the smaller HVH250 cartridges incorporated into Two-Mode hybrids by GM, BMW, and Chrysler.


----------



## Kevin Sharpe (Jul 4, 2011)

The CA Energy Commission notice of proposed grant awardees for plugin and fuelcell freight vehicle fueling infrastructure. Shell Oil, 1 of the 3 awardees, will offer renewable hydrogen for freight fueling 

http://www.energy.ca.gov/contracts/GFO-17-603_NOPA.pdf


----------



## Kevin Sharpe (Jul 4, 2011)

"May 3rd. Our CEO is off to New York for the announcement."


----------



## Kevin Sharpe (Jul 4, 2011)

Nikola plans to introduce a new “very large” fleet customer May 2

http://www.ttnews.com/articles/nikola-eliminates-truck-deposits-expands-initial-fueling-network


----------



## Caballus (Apr 2, 2017)

Hmm, Nikola is already talking about "production ramps", yet they have yet to break ground on a factory or even show a prototype doing actual street work.

At the same time Tesla Semi's keep being spotted doing what trucks do.

I have my popcorn ready for this show. I guess Nikola is going for the Big Bang approach and will reveal everything in one glorious presentation.

I will say this. I hope they build a lot of these before the market realizes the whole system won't work. I will be first in line on eBay to buy those drivetrains (minus the fuel cell crap).


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

Caballus said:


> At the same time Tesla Semi's keep being spotted doing what trucks do.


Do they? I've never seen any indication of how much load Tesla Semis are pulling, or a report of them travelling any significant distance, but perhaps they have been pulling real loads over useful distances. People like to make videos of them accelerating on city streets, without trailers, but that's not what real trucks do.

Nikola Motor is, of course, behind Tesla, and Tesla is years behind the companies that actually sell electric trucks.


----------



## Caballus (Apr 2, 2017)

Aaaand here it is. We find out Nikola is just a sock-puppet company to take out Tesla with bogus lawsuits. 

I was always suspicious when Nikola gave back customer "deposits" recently and crowed about it. No nascent company like this would willingly give back seed money.

They are positioning themselves as a shell company in case they get counter-sued and this patent troll strategy blows up in their face. The less money they have in the bank, the less they can be sued for.

I really hope Tesla hits back hard and exposes this nonsense. They might even counter-sue.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/t...g-design-of-nikola-hydrogen-trucks-2018-05-01


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

Caballus said:


> I really hope Tesla hits back hard and exposes this nonsense. They might even counter-sue.
> 
> https://www.marketwatch.com/story/t...g-design-of-nikola-hydrogen-trucks-2018-05-01


The article says that 


> Nikola sent a cease-and-desist letter to Tesla pointing out features on the electric Tesla Semi that resembled features on its own semi trucks — including the wraparound windshield, mid-entry door and aerodynamic fuselage...


None of that is even remotely patentable as an invention, so what Nikola Motors has are "design patents", which are known here as "registered designs"; they do not describe functional inventions, just a unique appearance. Perhaps Tesla is counting on the difference being obvious to anyone and not original to the Nikola One, so they know it would not stand up to a court challenge. Although the lawsuit extensively discusses functionality (such as the driver's field of view), the US Patent Office explains that in The Difference Between Design and Utility Patents and 
Improper Subject Matter for Design Patents that a design patent doesn't protect features, just an identifiable shape. On the other hand, as the Apple vs. Samsung "flat phone with rounded corners" lawsuit proves, stupidity does occur in courts and can be expensive.

A truck does not have a "fuselage". The court filing refer to a "semi" and "semi truck", but as actual truck manufacturers (which means not Tesla or Nikola) know, "semi" is an abbreviation of "semi-trailer"... it doesn't describe a truck at all. The truck which tows a semi-trailer (with a fifth-wheel hitch) is a highway tractor. That's the origin of the term "tractor-trailer", for the combination of a highway tractor truck and the trailer it is pulling. There are other items in the filing which suggest that the Nikola Motor people know nothing about trucks. Watching this circus is either amusing or just frustrating.

Do a web image search for "future trucks" and both the Nikola Motor and Tesla Motors designs blend in with the crowd. The Nikola One is particularly close to the MAN S Aero Liner concept from 2012:

Perhaps MAN Truck & Bus AG should be suing Nikola Motor? They could easily argue that Nikola Motor's design patents are invalid on the basis that the Nikola One cab fails to meet a fundamental requirement:


> 35 U.S.C. 171 requires that a design to be patentable must be "original."





The article also mentions one of my pet peeves:


> Nikola and Tesla have feuded before, and the companies’ names are based on the same inventor — Nikola Tesla.


Neither company has any right to appropriate the name of Nikola Tesla for their operations.


----------



## Caballus (Apr 2, 2017)

brian_, 

I am pretty much agreed on everything. These types of lawsuits drive me crazy. I question the whole concept of "Intellectual Property", but that is a whole other complicated discussion.

It's the favorite strategy of patent trolls. I hope the courts don't fall for the nonsense of patents on wrap-around windshield, doors, aerodynamic truck? I mean, really?

The takeaway I have from all this is the suspicion that Nikola is a literal troll company to Tesla. The company name was an early clue.

We can disagree on the merits of fuel cells, but the timing of this lawsuit is just too precious.

At the very least, this is getting entertaining.


----------



## Kevin Sharpe (Jul 4, 2011)

Caballus said:


> Aaaand here it is.


No, the big reveal is on the 3rd May


----------



## Kevin Sharpe (Jul 4, 2011)

Caballus said:


> These types of lawsuits drive me crazy.


I'd highly recommend you read up on the Ecotricity v Tesla lawsuit... especially the emails that Tesla wrote


----------



## Hollie Maea (Dec 9, 2009)

Really really stupid of NM to invite this level of scrutiny.


----------



## Kevin Sharpe (Jul 4, 2011)

Hollie Maea said:


> Really really stupid of NM to invite this level of scrutiny.


Not at all... if Nikola Motors believe they have a viable case they should test it in the courts


----------



## Hollie Maea (Dec 9, 2009)

Kevin Sharpe said:


> Not at all... if Nikola Motors believe they have a viable case they should test it in the courts


You don't open yourself up to legal discovery when you have committed fraud. That is just stupid.


----------



## Kevin Sharpe (Jul 4, 2011)

Hollie Maea said:


> You don't open yourself up to legal discovery when you have committed fraud. That is just stupid.


I don't believe Nikola Motors are stupid and doubt they'd have started litigation without a strong indication from their legal team that they can win.


----------



## Hollie Maea (Dec 9, 2009)

Kevin Sharpe said:


> I don't believe Nikola Motors are stupid and doubt they'd have started litigation without a strong indication from their legal team that they can win.


That's where you are mistaken.

And their "legal department" is Trevor's buddy Britton.


----------



## Kevin Sharpe (Jul 4, 2011)

Hollie Maea said:


> That's where you are mistaken.


My opinion differs from yours but I'm happy to wait and see... meanwhile we have the big announcement tomorrow, more clean trucks on the road


----------



## Kevin Sharpe (Jul 4, 2011)

“It's a great day tomorrow with a massive fleet announcement! Going live in the morning with the news.!”


----------



## Kevin Sharpe (Jul 4, 2011)

"Anheuser-Busch has placed an order for up to 800 hydrogen-electric powered semi-trucks from Nikola! 500-1,200 mile range and 20 minute refills will be integrated into their dedicated fleet beginning in 2020."

Read the full press release here: 

https://dxtn4vayafzin.cloudfront.ne...press_release/pdf/29/nikola_motor_050318b.pdf


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

Well, that was a painfully long lead-up to an order without any specific commitment: "up to" is a critical phrase. It will be interesting if they actually carry through with any significant number, and operate them for more than some contractually required minimum period.

AB InBev (the parent company of Anheuser-Busch) is a great candidate for this sort of program: logistics is a significant part of their business, but it's not their core business so they don't need to be as predictably efficient as a pure trucking company. Their image is critical to them, so being seen to be green is very valuable. They are huge, so they can absorb some failures in pilot programs. Walmart is similarly positioned, and has been active in novel trucking development.

They have also set an unreachable target - "Anheuser-Busch aims to convert its entire long-haul dedicated fleet to renewable powered trucks by 2025" - so they need to get going at something soon and can't wait for even more fashionable Tesla trucks to perhaps start production. The choice of long-haul operation for 100% "renewable" initially seems strange, since battery-electric trucks are much better suited to short-haul operation as a contribution to their carbon emissions target (18% reduction), but perhaps the problem is that the source of electricity varies by location, while this scheme (which is targeted at long-haul) promises a "renewable" source.

Anheuser-Busch news release:
Anheuser-Busch Continues Leadership in Clean Energy, Places Order for 800 Hydrogen-Electric Powered Semi-Trucks with Nikola Motor Company


----------



## Hollie Maea (Dec 9, 2009)

The fact that NM is treating an 800 unit order as a massive event strongly suggests to me that they were lying about having $8 billion worth of preorders (which implies tens of thousands of units).

Particularly telling is the statement from Anhauser Busch saying that NM would "staff up" to meet this order. Suggests that this is a large order compared to what they previously had lined up.

It boggles my mind that companies and investors will work with a company that has shown a willingness to blatantly lie about important things.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

Hollie Maea said:


> The fact that NM is treating an 800 unit order as a massive event strongly suggests to me that they were lying about having $8 billion worth of preorders (which implies tens of thousands of units).


An interesting observation. 

I think that 800 heavy trucks is a significant order - after all, this isn't a market which counts production in thousands per month per model. While that makes the big announcement fuss seem more reasonable, it also makes a claim of $8 billion worth of preorders - which I agree would be tens of thousands of trucks at hundreds of thousands of dollars each - very difficult to believe. It would be roughly 5% of U.S. annual market for heavy (Class 7 and Class 8) trucks; can a vehicle which is not in production yet make that level of market penetration?


----------



## Kevin Sharpe (Jul 4, 2011)

Hollie Maea said:


> The fact that NM is treating an 800 unit order as a massive event strongly suggests to me that they were lying about having $8 billion worth of preorders (which implies tens of thousands of units).


I think an initial order for 800 electric semis is very significant and as I've said before I'm really happy to see the truck sector shifting to cleaner solutions.



brian_ said:


> it also makes a claim of $8 billion worth of preorders - which I agree would be tens of thousands of trucks at hundreds of thousands of dollars each - very difficult to believe.


It's probably also worth considering the difference between this order (verified by both parties) and Tesla's claim to have 430,000 Model 3 reservations, which afaik, has never been independently verified and is widely challenged in the investor community


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

Kevin Sharpe said:


> It's probably also worth considering the difference between this order (verified by both parties) and Tesla's claim to have 430,000 Model 3 reservations, which afaik, has never been independently verified and is widely challenged in the investor community


While the "order" is verified by both parties, both agree that the quantity is "*up to*" 800 units; the minimum is unknown and could be as low as zero. A sane agreement would have phases, with opt-out (likely penalty-free) by either party before each phase, and with all details to be confirmed at each phase. The first phase would be a pilot program with a handful of trucks.

I don't know if the Model 3 reservation count is accurate, or even plausible, but I'll note that the reservation is a not a commitment by either the potential buyer or by Tesla Motors, and doesn't even include a firm price. Since it is not possible to see detailed configuration information (which every other auto manufacturer freely offers) without paying the reservation fee, there could be a significant number of people holding reservations with no real intention to purchase.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

_*Anheuser-Busch wants to deliver beer with Tesla's electric semi-trucks*
"It reserved 40 of the vehicles in one of the biggest orders yet."_

Apparently the Nikola trucks would be for longer routes and the Tesla trucks for shorter, but still long-haul (not local):


> The Wall Street Journal reports that Anheuser-Busch plans to use the Tesla trucks for shipments to wholesalers lying within 150 to 200 miles of its 21 breweries and they'll become part of the approximately 750-strong truck fleet it currently uses to ship its product.


This also provides some context for the scale of the Anheuser-Busch order to Nikola: *if* Anheuser-Busch were to replace their entire fleet (and more, accounting for a few years of expansion), the number of trucks required *could* be about 800. This is like people pitching schemes on _Dragon's Den_ or _Shark Tank_, talking about the size of the market that they are targeting, and neglecting to mention that they have no hope of ever getting any significant market share.


----------



## Kevin Sharpe (Jul 4, 2011)

Great news for anyone interested in clean trucks 👍

“We’ve asked @nikolamotor to staff up and build us 800 hydrogen-electric powered trucks as part of our mission to convert our entire dedicated fleet to renewable energy by 2025. Zero emissions, thousands of jobs. Our kind of math.”


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

Nothing new in the beer company tweet... except, of course, for omitting critical information such as the lack of commitment to the quantity, which is why tweets are more like headlines than real information.

And keep in mind: hydrogen _looks_ clean and thus meets the beer company's greenwashing requirement, but the Nikola Motor scheme makes this hydrogen by electrolysis from electricity, and the electricity could come from any source (not necessarily renewable or emissions-free)... such as a coal-fired generating station.

The job claim is bizarre - why would ordering these trucks cause more employment than ordering any other truck?


----------



## Kevin Sharpe (Jul 4, 2011)

Great news that Nikola’s refuelling network will be open to third parties 

Nikola’s H2 pricing is also looking competitive with $30 filling the Toyota Marai’s tanks (5kg) and delivering 502 km (312 miles) range 

“Each of Nikola's 700 hydrogen stations will produce up to 8,000 kg's per day. @Toyota, @Honda, @Hyundai, @audi, @Daimler or any other OEM that wants #hydrogen are welcome to fill at our 700 bar stations at around $6.00 per kg.”


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

Kevin Sharpe said:


> Great news that Nikola’s refuelling network will be open to third parties


Just speculating here, but funding of the proposed network may include government money which is contingent on serving other customers, and/or private investment with economic viability dependent on a larger customer base.



Kevin Sharpe said:


> Nikola’s H2 pricing is also looking competitive with $30 filling the Toyota Marai’s tanks (5kg) and delivering 502 km (312 miles) range
> 
> “Each of Nikola's 700 hydrogen stations will produce up to 8,000 kg's per day. @Toyota, @Honda, @Hyundai, @audi, @Daimler or any other OEM that wants #hydrogen are welcome to fill at our 700 bar stations at around $6.00 per kg.”


gasoline: 46.4 MJ/kg or 34.2 MJ/L, and US2.80/USgal or US$0.740/L => US$21.63/GJ
hydrogen: 142 MJ/kg or 9.17 MJ/L, and US$6/kg => US$42.25/GJ
(using energy content from Wikipedia's Energy density article)

True, the hydrogen is used much more efficiently, but since a large part of the gasoline cost is taxes that are not applied to the hydrogen, the hydrogen doesn't look like a great deal to me. The problem, of course, is the cost (in both energy and operating expense) of making hydrogen from electricity.


----------



## Kevin Sharpe (Jul 4, 2011)

brian_ said:


> the hydrogen doesn't look like a great deal to me.


You could say the same thing about electricity dispensed at Tesla Superchargers at $0.26 kWh (~$30 for ~320 Miles). It’s difficult to compete while fossil fuels are so heavily subsidised 



brian_ said:


> The problem, of course, is the cost (in both energy and operating expense) of making hydrogen from electricity.


Most vendors (like Nikola) will make H2 onsite which reduces costs enormously. It also removes dependence on the electricity grid allowing refuelling at remote locations and at almost any scale. I also understand that H2 at $6 per kg is profitable 😎


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

Kevin Sharpe said:


> Most vendors (like Nikola) will make H2 onsite which reduces costs enormously.


Small-scale production of just about anything is more expensive, so I assume that you're referring to reduced cost of energy transportation, because it avoids any transportation of hydrogen.



Kevin Sharpe said:


> It also removes dependence on the electricity grid allowing refuelling at remote locations and at almost any scale.


Of course the refuelling locations are completely dependent on the electricity grid, because that's how they get their energy. I can only guess that you are referring to the small amount of on-site hydrogen storage; the storage exists as a buffer to allow trucks to be refuelled rapidly, rather than a rate limited by the hydrogen production rate, which is in turn limited by the electrical power supply capacity.

They're also dependent on a water supply (nine times the rate of hydrogen production by mass, with the extra 8 kg or 8 L of water per kg of hydrogen being the oxygen). I assume they get that from a municipal water supply.

Nikola is talking about 8 ton/day H2 production and 4 ton storage. In the rare event of a brief grid outage the station could continue to dispense for about half a day of normal traffic... if it has backup power to safely operate the dispensing equipment. In the even more rare event of an extended outage, they're dead for the duration.

The idea of on-site energy storage to support high-rate delivery to a vehicle is not new. It even applies in a battery-electric system: there are battery-electric ferries operating in Europe with much larger battery installations at the terminals than on the ferries, so that the ferries can be charged quickly then the shore battery recharged more slowly while the ferry in enroute. The on-site energy storage is a buffer to handle rate mismatches, whether the energy is stored in a battery or a hydrogen tank.

There would be no grid dependence if hydrogen fuelling stations were located at the renewable energy sources, but of course it would be ridiculous to detour transport trucks to wind farms to refuel.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

Kevin Sharpe said:


> You could say the same thing about electricity dispensed at Tesla Superchargers at $0.26 [per] kWh.


The price at a Supercharger station presumably has more to do with the capital cost of the station and "charge whatever we can get them to pay" than the cost of electricity from the grid at the station.



Kevin Sharpe said:


> I also understand that H2 at $6 per kg is profitable 😎



hydrogen: 142 MJ/kg or 9.17 MJ/L, and US$6/kg => US$42.25/GJ
average cost of electricity to commercial users in the United States: US$0.11/kWh, or US$30.55/GJ => US$4.34/kg of H2 at perfect efficiency
With losses in the process, operating cost for the hydrogen production and dispensing equipment, and capital costs to be amortized, profit at US$6/kg seems unlikely to me. Of course, using the trendy entrepreneur definition of success (meaning that additional capital is raised at a rate exceeding operational losses) it might be viable.


----------



## Karter2 (Nov 17, 2011)

> There would be no grid dependence if hydrogen fuelling stations were located at the renewable energy sources, but of course it would be ridiculous to detour transport trucks to wind farms to refuel. ...


 Even if there was a wind turbine (? How many kW needed ) or solar plant built to supply each fueling station, its common knowlege that solar and wind are unreliable, so either a ?? kWhr battery farm is also required,..
.......or maybe a stand by generator ( hydrogen fueled ?)

Just how many kW are needed to produce 8tons of H2 /day (350kG/hr) ??
.......if brians numbers above are good then that suggests 39.5 kW per kg h2
... Or 13.2 MW continuous 24hr supply
Allowing +50% for efficiency, ancilliaries etc, so say a 20MW electricity feed.
In real terms that is a 100MW wind (or solar) farm and "quite a large" standby generator !
You are talking 100s of millions of dollars for that set up !....just for one fuel stop !


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

Karter2 - that's my thinking. Hydrogen generation from electricity on-site at refueling stations feeding fuel cell trucks is just another way to store electrical energy from the public utility grid in a vehicle. It may be workable (for some use cases, maybe), but it isn't an alternative to a grid-supplied system - it *is* a grid-supplied system.

Saying that the energy which is stored in the hydrogen is "renewable" is a political game of credits and financing and promotional spin, not physical reality.


----------



## Karter2 (Nov 17, 2011)

This is a useful tool...
https://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/production-cost-analysis.html
Suggests that $6/kg is a optomistic retail price.

And following on from my last post, what are the chances of finding investors keen to stump up $150-200 million for a truck stop ! ?


----------



## Kevin Sharpe (Jul 4, 2011)

Karter2 said:


> This is a useful tool...
> https://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/production-cost-analysis.html
> Suggests that $6/kg is a optomistic retail price.


A lot has changed since 2011... the ICCT report from 2017 (here) is more up to date but even this is considered very conservative on real world cost reduction by most people in the H2 industry


----------



## Kevin Sharpe (Jul 4, 2011)

brian_ said:


> Saying that the energy which is stored in the hydrogen is "renewable" is a political game of credits and financing and promotional spin, not physical reality.


CertiHy would disagree with you... lots of H2 is certified 'green' even if it doesn't meet your definition of 'renewable'


----------



## Kevin Sharpe (Jul 4, 2011)

"There are other indicators that this is the start of the hydrogen transport age. Those skeptical of Nikola should watch Toyota, one of the world’s largest and most sophisticated industrial enterprises.

The automaker is testing a hydrogen fuel cell heavy-duty truck in Southern California and is expanding fuel cell research globally. It’s proving out a modular approach where the fuel stack in Toyota’s Mirai sedan can be used in various configurations for vehicles ranging from a forklift to a pickup truck to a big rig. It’s also building a fleet of fuel cell buses for use in Tokyo."

TRUCKS - Anheuser-Busch Nikola Truck Order Puts U.S. on Hydrogen Highway


----------



## Karter2 (Nov 17, 2011)

It may be a more up to date study, but the figures have not changed much .
$6 / ltr by 2025 ,...IF there are 1 m H2 vehicles, cheap electricity, and low tax's !... All highly optomistic at best .


> ......Hydrogen production costs vary with process and scale. The NRC projects that retail hydrogen prices will decrease from $10 per kilogram or higher in 2017 to about $4 to $6 per kilogram in the approximate 2025 time frame, factoring in both increased volume and a shift to more renewable and lower-carbon sources.9 The NRC study indicates the importance of the shift to higher volume fuel cell vehicle usage for lower cost hydrogen production and lower per-kilogram markups for taxes and business pro ts: $6 per kilogram may be possible with 1 million fuel cell vehicles, and around $4 per kilogram with 5 million fuel cell vehicles.........1


----------



## Kevin Sharpe (Jul 4, 2011)

Karter2 said:


> It may be a more up to date study, but the figures have not changed much .


As I said the reports are widely out of date... most in the H2 industry consider Nikola's figures reasonable


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

Kevin Sharpe said:


> CertiHy would disagree with you... lots of H2 is certified 'green' even if it doesn't meet your definition of 'renewable'


There's an example of the business of green-labelling. 



> The proposed Premium Hydrogen GO system, similar to the existing green electricity GO scheme, decouples the green attribute from the physical flow of the product and makes Premium Hydrogen available EU-wide, independently from its production sites (see graphs below).


So if your hydrogen comes from natural gas or is made with energy from coal, you can trade credits with someone using hydrogen from wind-powered electrolysis to feel comfortably green.  Although it is called "Guarantee of Origin", it is credit-trading.

The intent is the same as the green power accounting: to allow consumers to use local sources, but pay their desired producer to which they are not really connected.

To be fair, the point of these systems is that the amount claimed to be green can't exceed the amount which actually is green; the credit-trading is done with sound accounting. In theory if absolutely all consumers insisted on only green energy, non-green producers would be shut out of business.

In the Nikola Motor scheme, all hydrogen will be generated from electricity. They can credit-trade their way to a claim of green or renewable electrical energy, which won't change the coal-fired thermal plants powering much of it, but will pay extra-high prices to some green power producers to make them more viable.


----------



## Karter2 (Nov 17, 2011)

Kevin Sharpe said:


> As I said the reports are widely out of date... most in the H2 industry consider Nikola's figures reasonable


 The H2 industry would like us to believe prices will be low.
But there are other opinions also...


> ....NREL estimates that hydrogen fuel prices may fall to the $10 to $8 per kg range in the 2020 to 2025


----------



## Kevin Sharpe (Jul 4, 2011)

Some great progress 😎

“First Refuelling of a Hydrogen Vehicle in Orkney Using Locally Produced, Renewable Hydrogen“


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

Kevin Sharpe said:


> Some great progress &#55357;&#56846;
> 
> “First Refuelling of a Hydrogen Vehicle in Orkney Using Locally Produced, Renewable Hydrogen“


That's great for Orkney, an example of an "isolated territory" for which the system is intended. I'm sure this approach would be suitable for all of the places on the planned Nikola Motor network where there is both excess renewable energy generation and a lack of export transmission capacity... although I doubt that any such places exist in the continental United States, and especially not on interstate highways to be used by long-haul trucks.


----------



## Kevin Sharpe (Jul 4, 2011)

“Check out the Nikola 120kW fuel cell stack being broken in for the pre-production truck reveal later this year. Each truck has (2) 120kW fuel cells & 60-80 kg's h2 on board along with 240kWh-360kWh of batteries depending on customer options.”


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

Interesting. Nikola Motor doesn't usually share much real technical detail. One of observation, though...

If this vehicle was as far along in development as they have been saying, why is the fuel cell stack just now appearing... and still not in a truck?

The specs are interesting, too: they must be assuming that 240 kW is not sufficient for peak demand (which is true), and that while it is enough for average demand, either it could take a lot of driving to catch up after some high-demand events (given the battery capacity in this hybrid), or purchasing electricity and storing it in a battery really is more attractive than going through the whole hydrogen cycle.


----------



## Kevin Sharpe (Jul 4, 2011)

brian_ said:


> they must be assuming that 240 kW is not sufficient for peak demand (which is true)


Most hydrogen vehicles take the same approach... Riversimple's RASA for example has a tiny 8.5kW Fuel Cell and uses supercaps to supply the additional energy required during acceleration 

https://www.riversimple.com/technology-behind-rasa-hydrogen-car/


----------



## Hollie Maea (Dec 9, 2009)

brian_ said:


> If this vehicle was as far along in development as they have been saying, why is the fuel cell stack just now appearing... and still not in a truck?


These guys went to the effort of faking a video of their truck running, so I think that answers the question for you.

Don't get me wrong, they are hiring people to work on components, but they are straight up lying about how far along they are.


----------



## Hollie Maea (Dec 9, 2009)

brian_ said:


> The specs are interesting, too: they must be assuming that 240 kW is not sufficient for peak demand (which is true), and that while it is enough for average demand, either it could take a lot of driving to catch up after some high-demand events (given the battery capacity in this hybrid), or purchasing electricity and storing it in a battery really is more attractive than going through the whole hydrogen cycle.


Correct. It was designed as a series hybrid for which the range extender would be able to handle typical average power indefinately, and any given larger one--i.e., there is a limit to how big of a mountain that exists. We sized the battery so that you could go up the longest steepest hill in the country--with the range extender (natural gas at the time) running wide open--and you would go from full at the bottom to empty at the top.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

Kevin Sharpe said:


> Most hydrogen vehicles take the same approach... Riversimple's RASA for example has a tiny 8.5kW Fuel Cell and uses supercaps to supply the additional energy required during acceleration
> 
> https://www.riversimple.com/technology-behind-rasa-hydrogen-car/


Yes, and I don't have a problem with the approach at all. Fuel cell vehicles (hydrogen, natural gas, whatever) are logically hybrids. But smoothing out power demand takes about a kilowatt-hour per ton of vehicle; this truck's specs are ten times that, typical of a plug-in hybrid which is designed for some range from plug-in charging.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

Hollie Maea said:


> Correct. It was designed as a series hybrid for which the range extender would be able to handle typical average power indefinately, and any given larger one--i.e., there is a limit to how big of a mountain that exists. We sized the battery so that you could go up the longest steepest hill in the country--with the range extender (natural gas at the time) running wide open--and you would go from full at the bottom to empty at the top.


That makes sense, but with 240 kW of fuel cell output, perhaps 600 hp of motor output needed (so maybe 500 kW from the fuel cell and battery to allow for motor inefficiency), and 240 to 360 kWh of battery, they're allowing for an hour or more of climbing that grade. Was it designed for Nepal?


----------



## Kevin Sharpe (Jul 4, 2011)

Hollie Maea said:


> they are straight up lying about how far along they are


Sounds just like Mr Musk  Careful you don't get caught on the wrong side of history... the H2 industry is growing nicely despite your pessimism;

California opens it's 35th retail hydrogen station


----------



## Kevin Sharpe (Jul 4, 2011)

brian_ said:


> I doubt that any such places exist in the continental United States, and especially not on interstate highways to be used by long-haul trucks


Many locations are grid constrained globally including the SW UK which has allocated all it's spare capacity to the Hinkley Point C Nuclear Reactor development. One of the purposes of the BIG HIT project is to demonstrate the flexibility of hydrogen storage as part of a renewable energy roadmap using many different technologies


----------



## Hollie Maea (Dec 9, 2009)

brian_ said:


> That makes sense, but with 240 kW of fuel cell output, perhaps 600 hp of motor output needed (so maybe 500 kW from the fuel cell and battery to allow for motor inefficiency), and 240 to 360 kWh of battery, they're allowing for an hour or more of climbing that grade. Was it designed for Nepal?


We designed it for 20 minutes of climbing a six percent grade fully loaded at 65 mph, while maintaining correct state of charge margins. Turns out there isn't actually a hill that high in the US.


----------



## Hollie Maea (Dec 9, 2009)

Kevin Sharpe said:


> Sounds just like Mr Musk  Careful you don't get caught on the wrong side of history... the H2 industry is growing nicely despite your pessimism;
> 
> California opens it's 35th retail hydrogen station


I'm fairly ambivalent either way about Hydrogen, though it is not the way I would personally go.

But Nikola, in particular, I became strongly opposed to the day that Trevor Milton got up in front of the world and said that his prototype, which didn't even have motors in it, was fully functional.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

Kevin Sharpe said:


> Many locations are grid constrained globally including the SW UK which has allocated all it's spare capacity to the Hinkley Point C Nuclear Reactor development. One of the purposes of the BIG HIT project is to demonstrate the flexibility of hydrogen storage as part of a renewable energy roadmap using many different technologies


I get that, and I applaud the effort. The resulting system might make a lot of sense in many places. 

Nikola Motor's proposal is just not about this sort of situation at all.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

Hollie Maea said:


> We designed it for 20 minutes of climbing a six percent grade fully loaded at 65 mph, while maintaining correct state of charge margins. Turns out there isn't actually a hill that high in the US.



At 65 mph (105 km/h) on a 6% grade the truck would climb 6864 feet (2092 m); while there are much taller mountains, I'm not surprised that there are not single highway climbs of that magnitude. For comparison, the SAE J2807 standard for towing performance (for vehicles towing up to 10,000 pounds, so generally recreational and light commercial trailers) requires that the vehicle only be able to climb 3,000 feet up a similar grade while maintaining only 40 mph; the standard uses a 12-mile section of Arizona Highway 68 at the Davis Dam as the test road.

The Nikola One battery is much larger than needed to supplement the fuel cell for 20 minutes - or it is sized for battery-only operation for that 20 minutes - so this really looks like a plug-in hybrid solution as currently presented.

Also, no one needs to climb six percent grades at 65 mph. That would be nice, and would certainly help traffic flow on mountain highways without extra lanes on uphill grades, but it's hard to see trucking companies paying a premium to be able to do it.


----------



## Caballus (Apr 2, 2017)

*Sigh* So many words devoted to a technology with no future.

It's a simple two questions:

1. How many kWh to produce 1kg of H2?
2. How many USEABLE kWh does 1kg of H2 deliver through FCEL?

The math is inescapable even if both assume maximum theoretical efficiency.

The only way to make this work is to artificially subsidize the overall cost of H2. If you are going to do that, then why pick the least efficient technology to store energy?

And before you ask, no I will not show the answers to these questions because I am tired of technical people not being able to find them for themselves, especially since they are all over this forum.


----------



## Kevin Sharpe (Jul 4, 2011)

Caballus said:


> *Sigh* So many words devoted to a technology with no future.


You should probably tell Shell... they're busy adding H2 refuelling to their forecourts across Europe (including one just up the road from me ).


----------



## Caballus (Apr 2, 2017)

Shell? As in fossil fuel Shell? You know this is just a hedge to greenwash natural gas, right? 

I'm disappointed. Your other posts imply you wouldn't be fooled by this.

Get back to me when there are actual commitments (meaning big $$$$) into H2/FCEL. At the moment it's just promises and demo's.


----------



## Kevin Sharpe (Jul 4, 2011)

Caballus said:


> Shell?


Yes, the $265B company that operates in 70+ countries, and has ~100K employees 



Caballus said:


> Get back to me when there are actual commitments (meaning big $$$$) into H2/FCEL


In the UK Shell opened another retail refuelling location last month at the Beaconsfield services (see here). This location is interesting because it's the first to bring refuelling onto the same forecourt as petrol and diesel while continuing the trend towards onsite hydrogen generation.

A useful map showing planned/active sites is located here. You will see that it's already possible for me to drive a hydrogen car around Western Europe. Within a couple of years I think it will be much easier than using third party rapid chargers and probably a lot cheaper 

Obviously you are free to ignore hydrogen electric vehicles but that won't prevent them from being part of the clean transport mix. Personally, I'm looking forward to my first hydrogen conversion


----------



## Karter2 (Nov 17, 2011)

Kevin Sharpe said:


> In the UK Shell opened another retail refuelling location last month at the Beaconsfield services (see here). This location is interesting because it's the first to bring refuelling onto the same forecourt as petrol and diesel while continuing the trend towards onsite hydrogen generation.


I admire your enthusiasm and optomism Kevin, but i am sure your business experience tells you that for a company the scale of Shell, opening one hydrogen refueling pump last month , is nothing more than a promotional gimick in an attempt to "greenwash" their image at times of much incoming flack for Fossil Fuel producers.
PS, is there any information on the capacity (kg/day ?) , or the retail price (£\kg) at those stations ?


----------



## Kevin Sharpe (Jul 4, 2011)

Karter2 said:


> opening one hydrogen refueling pump last month


Please review the map I posted once again. Today we have 14 hydrogen refuelling locations open that I could use as a retail customer in the UK. Shell have two open and another two will open in the next couple of months, in total 40 (iirc) locations have planning or are currently under construction. Once all are open I will be able to drive a hydrogen vehicle anywhere in the UK.



Karter2 said:


> is nothing more than a promotional gimick in an attempt to "greenwash" their image at times of much incoming flack for Fossil Fuel producers.


I guess you could say the same about Shell's EV rapid charger initiative... personally I think they are much smarter than you think and will respond to customer demand 








Karter2 said:


> is there any information on the capacity (kg/day ?) , or the retail price (£\kg) at those stations ?


At introduction the retail price was £10\kg (here) which is less than we currently pay for petrol in the UK. The target is £5\kg which obviously represents a substantial saving.

By way of comparison, Tesla Superchargers are £0.20\kWh, and other rapids are £0.25-£0.50\kWh.

This video is a couple of years old but gives you an insight into the refuelling technology;


----------



## Kevin Sharpe (Jul 4, 2011)

A startup has a grand vision to make hydrogen trucks a reality by 2020 -- here's its plan


----------



## Kevin Sharpe (Jul 4, 2011)

Nikola is now hiring in Arizona and opening a new 150,000 Sq. Ft. R&D facility in Phoenix.

Press release;

https://dxtn4vayafzin.cloudfront.ne.../press_release/pdf/32/180607_nikola_motor.pdf


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

Kevin Sharpe said:


> Nikola is now hiring in Arizona and opening a new 150,000 Sq. Ft. R&D facility in Phoenix.
> 
> Press release;
> 
> https://dxtn4vayafzin.cloudfront.ne.../press_release/pdf/32/180607_nikola_motor.pdf


So, if I understand this correctly, the company has 10,000 orders for a complete and ready-to-build vehicle (for which prototypes are in production), but is opening an R&D facility and only in the planning stage for a factory.


----------



## Kevin Sharpe (Jul 4, 2011)

Nel ASA: Awarded multi-billion NOK electrolyzer and fueling station contract by Nikola

http://news.cision.com/nel-asa/r/ne...d-fueling-station-contract-by-nikola,c2559428


----------



## Hathaway (Sep 5, 2018)

I question the wisdom of using a fuel cell. The PEM in a typical stack undergoes severe degradation for such an expensive part. Also, the overall efficiency of the H2 cycle is quite low compared to just using an NG gas turbine like Capstone.
At least with NG, you are up running right away with a pervasive infrastructure. No need to risk success on a technology that has yet to prove viable in truck transport. When the batteries get better (and they will quickly) you just ditch the turbine for an ideal all battery solution.


----------



## Hollie Maea (Dec 9, 2009)

Hathaway said:


> I question the wisdom of using a fuel cell. The PEM in a typical stack undergoes severe degradation for such an expensive part. Also, the overall efficiency of the H2 cycle is quite low compared to just using an NG gas turbine like Capstone.
> At least with NG, you are up running right away with a pervasive infrastructure. No need to risk success on a technology that has yet to prove viable in truck transport. When the batteries get better (and they will quickly) you just ditch the turbine for an ideal all battery solution.


Nikola moved away from natural gas after having a falling out with the company that they were planning to build their NG fuel systems and which would have also supplied the refueling network. This was the company that had bought Trevor Milton's previous company, which built natural gas systems for traditional semi trucks.

The move to H2 was not based on the merits of Hydrogen.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

*Toyota Project Portal 2.0*

There has just been another round of publicity for another hydrogen fuel cell heavy highway truck: the Toyota's Project Portal 2.0. It's not a production vehicle (and so not directly suitable for this forum section)... but then, neither is the Nikola One.

This Toyota project uses two fuel cell stacks from Toyota's Mirai car (suggesting 228 kW total output), a relatively modest 12 kWh battery to smooth out the power demand, and 670 hp from two motors. It apparently manages 80,000-lb (36,288-kg) gross combined weight rating (GCWR) and range of 300 mi (483 km) on 60 kilograms of hydrogen in six tanks. It was built by Ricardo from a Kenworth T680 low-roof 40-inch sleeper cab production truck; the fuel-cell truck is heavier than the diesel original.

Here’s How Toyota Improved Project Portal, its Fuel Cell Truck


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

*Hyundai straight truck*

There's also apparently a Hyundai truck which is close to production:
1,000 Hyundai Fuel Cell Electric Trucks Headed for Switzerland

This is a straight truck (not a tractor for a semi-trailer) with a single rear axle or single rear drive axle plus a tag, eight hydrogen storage tanks, two parallel fuel cell stacks producing 190 kilowatts, and an electric motor putting out 465 horsepower and 2,500 pound-feet of torque. The truck is supposedly capable of up to 400 kilometers of range, or about 250 miles, with an unknown mass of payload.

Given those specs, it will likely run not much more than half the maximum gross weight of the tractors from Toyota and others (so 20 tons or so).


----------



## Caballus (Apr 2, 2017)

*Sad music plays for H2*


https://electrek.co/2019/02/08/nikola-motors-electric-trucks-tesla-semi/


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

Caballus said:


> *Sad music plays for H2*
> 
> 
> https://electrek.co/2019/02/08/nikola-motors-electric-trucks-tesla-semi/


Interesting. To me, this just confirms that Nikola was never a serious company, but just a wanna-be. They have never had a viable plan, and offer the scheme-of-the-day to attract investors.

Also, I had not heard of the Nikola Tre. It appears to be a more conventional cab-over (with a single rear axle), perhaps because real fleet operators have pointed out how stupid these "futuristic" cabs (from Nikola and Tesla) are for an actual working truck.


----------



## Caballus (Apr 2, 2017)

Any car or truck manufacturer with a H2/Fuel Cell program announcement is a joke. 

It was always a ploy to bluff customers and competitors to stay put and ignore BEV, because the Hydrogen "Economy" was upon us.


----------



## Caballus (Apr 2, 2017)

Looks like Trevor is just another "Hydrogen Economy" grifter. His fuel cell powered house of cards is crumbling by the hour now. Trevor jumped on the natural gas bandwagon when fracking boom started with his first NG truck concept, then pivoted to fuel cells when that got hot, then to full BEV when Tesla got hot. 

My fear is when this all crumbles (and it will), a bad taste will be left on the whole EV industry, not just fuel cells. A clue on who benefits from killing EVs is in the fuel for that first fake truck.


----------



## Ladogaboy (Apr 25, 2010)

Caballus said:


> Looks like Trevor is just another "Hydrogen Economy" grifter. His fuel cell powered house of cards is crumbling by the hour now. Trevor jumped on the natural gas bandwagon when fracking boom started with his first NG truck concept, then pivoted to fuel cells when that got hot, then to full BEV when Tesla got hot.
> 
> My fear is when this all crumbles (and it will), a bad taste will be left on the whole EV industry, not just fuel cells. A clue on who benefits from killing EVs is in the fuel for that first fake truck.


The partnership with GM is what's keeping this interesting. Everything that Milton promised is technology that GM already has at the ready. Essentially, in combination with the 40 hydrogen electrolysis fueling stations that Nikola has already purchased, the foundation is set for a fleet of HFC semis and the BEV/HFC Badger. Basically, GM's investment is simply purchasing existing marketing for technology they already had but were unable to sell.

Also, don't look at NGFC and HFC as somehow mutually exclusive. In fact, the same fuel cell array can be used with either fuel as a means of energy production.


----------



## Caballus (Apr 2, 2017)

Ladogaboy said:


> The partnership with GM is what's keeping this interesting. Everything that Milton promised is technology that GM already has at the ready. Essentially, in combination with the 40 hydrogen electrolysis fueling stations that Nikola has already purchased, the foundation is set for a fleet of HFC semis and the BEV/HFC Badger. Basically, GM's investment is simply purchasing existing marketing for technology they already had but were unable to sell.
> 
> Also, don't look at NGFC and HFC as somehow mutually exclusive. In fact, the same fuel cell array can be used with either fuel as a means of energy production.


HFC from any company is a scam. The plan is to use the "green" H2 to sell the concept. Once everyone (consumers and government) is invested in the vehicles and distribution, most of the H2 will be NG derived (or mixed like the ethanol greenwashing scam). Dealing with the CO2 at the refinery will always be a future problem. It's the same playbook, from the same characters.

Check out Trevor's natural gas pedigree in his history. You can also lookup NG sponsorship of Nikola and GM's HFC efforts. Don't be a sucker.


----------



## Ladogaboy (Apr 25, 2010)

Caballus said:


> HFC from any company is a scam. The plan is to use the "green" H2 to sell the concept. Once everyone (consumers and government) is invested in the vehicles and distribution, most of the H2 will be NG derived (or mixed like the ethanol greenwashing scam). Dealing with the CO2 at the refinery will always be a future problem. It's the same playbook, from the same characters.
> 
> Check out Trevor's natural gas pedigree in his history. You can also lookup NG sponsorship of Nikola and GM's HFC efforts. Don't be a sucker.


Unfortunately, I think you're also being a bit of a sucker. While I agree with you that steam reforming H2 is problematic, don't let it blind you to the fact that both electrolysis and natural gas itself are cleaner than what is currently being burned to power our commercial trucking fleet. It would take decades to build enough batteries to replace those diesel trucks with BEV, and it would take decades beyond that to build enough battery storage for the excess renewable energy that will be produced in the coming years.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

Not "Would" will - the batteries WILL be made
Tesla is doubling in car capacity every 18 months - and with all of those customers waiting will be doing at least as well in batteries
Lets say a Semi needs as many batteries as 20 cars
2020 - 500,000 cars - no semis
2021 - 700,000 cars - 15,000 semis
2022 - 1 Million cars - 30,000 semis
2023 - 1.5 million cars - 50,000 semis
2024 - 2 million cars - 70,000 semis 
2025 - 3 million cars - 150,000 semis - that is getting close to the number of new semis sold every year

So not "decades" - probably less than one decade


----------



## Caballus (Apr 2, 2017)

Ladogaboy said:


> Unfortunately, I think you're also being a bit of a sucker. While I agree with you that steam reforming H2 is problematic, don't let it blind you to the fact that both electrolysis and natural gas itself are cleaner than what is currently being burned to power our commercial trucking fleet. It would take decades to build enough batteries to replace those diesel trucks with BEV, and it would take decades beyond that to build enough battery storage for the excess renewable energy that will be produced in the coming years.


It would take decades to build out an H2 infrastructure. It is a Rube-Goldberg system of inefficient energy conversion. Evolving batteries and beefing up the grid will take much less time and money and result in a simple robust overall system.


----------



## remy_martian (Feb 4, 2019)

Ladogaboy said:


> Unfortunately, I think you're also being a bit of a sucker. While I agree with you that steam reforming H2 is problematic, don't let it blind you to the fact that both electrolysis and natural gas itself are cleaner than what is currently being burned to power our commercial trucking fleet. It would take decades to build enough batteries to replace those diesel trucks with BEV


It takes a day to convert a semi truck to CNG. No fuel cell or hydrogen BS.

If you're going to burn methane, burn it.

The entire point is to have a transition to zero CO2 or carbon neutral.

That means just burning biodiesel straight up, burning cow farts as CNG, or electric off solar/wind.

The turbine garbage truck idea was pilfered, I think, from Ian Wright (a Tesla founder), who has been building turbine hybrid electric medium trucks as Wrightspeed for a decade and a half. I took a tour way back of their shop when they were building their first prototype, "Suzy", a turbine-electric hybrid Isuzu medium truck:






The drive motors they use are homebrew and droolworthy.


----------



## Ladogaboy (Apr 25, 2010)

Duncan said:


> Not "Would" will - the batteries WILL be made
> Tesla is doubling in car capacity every 18 months - and with all of those customers waiting will be doing at least as well in batteries
> Lets say a Semi needs as many batteries as 20 cars
> 2020 - 500,000 cars - no semis
> ...


I'll believe it when I see it. It's more than likely one semi equals 10 new electric cars or 2 to 3 new Powerpacks, so the 150,000 mark represents 1.5 million cars (something Tesla is still producing less than a third of). Keep in mind, that's concurrent with cars, soon-to-be Cybertrucks, and grid-tied battery storage. Even Tesla puts their battery production capacity out a decade or more, and producing 150,000 semis per year by 2025 is beyond ambitious, even for Tesla. 

And we're not even discussing materials procurement. There are challenges even beyond overthrowing foreign governments or killing off endangered species to access new lithium sources.


----------



## Ladogaboy (Apr 25, 2010)

Caballus said:


> It would take decades to build out an H2 infrastructure. It is a Rube-Goldberg system of inefficient energy conversion. Evolving batteries and beefing up the grid will take much less time and money and result in a simple robust overall system.


Why do you think that? Nikola already purchased 40 hydrogen electrolysis plants. There would only need to be a few hundred installed to cover all of the major shipping corridors in the United States. 

As for the efficiency, yes, it's a weak point for current hydrogen, just as battery energy density and refueling times are a weak point for battery technology. Both will improve with time, and both have their strengths in the current environment. Renewables will often produce excess energy that can't be absorbed. In particular, windfarms will often overproduce power when it's least needed. Having energy sinks like hydrogen electrolysis is "beefing up the grid."


----------



## Ladogaboy (Apr 25, 2010)

remy_martian said:


> It takes a day to convert a semi truck to CNG. No fuel cell or hydrogen BS.
> 
> If you're going to burn methane, burn it.
> 
> ...


CNG turbines are extremely inefficient. About half of what a fuel cell stack would be running on the same fuel, and yes, that's the other option. Keep using waste CNG, but run it through fuel cell stacks instead of a CNG turbine.


----------



## Mojave (Dec 4, 2019)

Just read this thread from the start. Very entertaining, especially considering the news that Trevor Milton has stepped down from his position at Nikola.









Nikola's chairman steps down, stock crashes following allegations of fraud


Nikola Corp. founder and Executive Chairman Trevor Milton is stepping down from the electric truck company effective immediately. This comes in the wake of a report from a noted short-seller accusing the company of fraud. Milton is succeeded by Stephen Girsky, a former General Motors executive...




techcrunch.com


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

If you want to use CNG the most efficient way is in a diesel cycle engine
Most CNG engines use the Otto cycle but Cummins in concert with a company called Westport have been selling engines that use the diesel cycle with a small amount of diesel fuel as an ignition starter

These are very efficient and they can achieve diesel levels of power density


----------



## Ladogaboy (Apr 25, 2010)

Duncan said:


> If you want to use CNG the most efficient way is in a diesel cycle engine
> Most CNG engines use the Otto cycle but Cummins in concert with a company called Westport have been selling engines that use the diesel cycle with a small amount of diesel fuel as an ignition starter
> 
> These are very efficient and they can achieve diesel levels of power density


Do you have any references or papers supporting the greater than 60% to 70% conversion efficiency for running CNG through a diesel cycle engine?


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

Where in hell do you get 60% to 70% for ANYTHING running CNG!!
That is better than the best fuel cell running pure oxygen!

A fuel cell using Hydrogen from CNG will be lucky to get 25% overall

the same CNG through a diesel will be close to 50%


----------



## Ladogaboy (Apr 25, 2010)

Duncan said:


> Where in hell do you get 60% to 70% for ANYTHING running CNG!!
> That is better than the best fuel cell running pure oxygen!
> 
> A fuel cell using Hydrogen from CNG will be lucky to get 25% overall
> ...


Untrue. Ceres Power's current CNG fuel cell operates at 60% efficiency. Don't get me wrong. There are weaknesses to fuel cell stacks compared to an diesel cycle internal combustion engine (in particular, power density), but efficiency is not one of them. Especially not when you're looking at the entire system, where a diesel cycle will lose an additional 20% to 25% from flywheel to wheels, as opposed to the 5% to 10% a fuel cell vehicle will lose from inverter to wheels.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

Ladogaboy said:


> Untrue. Ceres Power's current CNG fuel cell operates at 60% efficiency. Don't get me wrong. There are weaknesses to fuel cell stacks compared to an diesel cycle internal combustion engine (in particular, power density), but efficiency is not one of them. Especially not when you're looking at the entire system, where a diesel cycle will lose an additional 20% to 25% from flywheel to wheels, as opposed to the 5% to 10% a fuel cell vehicle will lose from inverter to wheels.


Nope you are talking nonsense here the fuel cells loses are in ADDITION to the losses in cooling and compressing the fuel and the "flywheels to wheels" losses apply to both in addition to the motor and inverter losses 
The BOTH need to go through similar reduction gearing - the additional ratios in an IC gearbox do not add anything to the losses


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

Ladogaboy said:


> Untrue. Ceres Power's current CNG fuel cell operates at 60% efficiency. Don't get me wrong. There are weaknesses to fuel cell stacks compared to an diesel cycle internal combustion engine (in particular, power density), but efficiency is not one of them. Especially not when you're looking at the entire system, where a diesel cycle will lose an additional 20% to 25% from flywheel to wheels, as opposed to the 5% to 10% a fuel cell vehicle will lose from inverter to wheels.


Just re- read - and yes a fuel cell running on pure hydrogen can get almost to 60% - then you have to take off the energy required to compress and cool the Hydrogen - 
Then the BIG one converting CNG to Hydrogen is a very lossy process - you lose about half of the available energy in the process

So a diesel running CNG can convert nearly 40% of the available energy to power
A fuel cell using hydrogen from CNG can convert less than 25% of the available energy to power - and its NOT "engineering" its "physics"

THEN once the energy has been converted to power - the diesel is mechanical power 
The Fuel cell is electrical power - needs an inverter and motor to convert to mechanical power (another loss)

Once both are mechanical power they BOTH need reduction gears and transmissions - with similar losses

Overall using the CNG directly will take you over twice as far

Its the same comparing a battery vehicle to a fuel cell vehicle with "green" hydrogen

Using the same energy to drive a battery car takes you three times as far as using that energy to make hydrogen, compress it, cool it, and then convert it in a fuel cell


----------



## Ladogaboy (Apr 25, 2010)

Duncan said:


> Just re- read - and yes a fuel cell running on pure hydrogen can get almost to 60% - then you have to take off the energy required to compress and cool the Hydrogen -
> Then the BIG one converting CNG to Hydrogen is a very lossy process - you lose about half of the available energy in the process
> 
> So a diesel running CNG can convert nearly 40% of the available energy to power
> ...


You seem to be missing the point that these fuel cells can run off of CNG directly. No steam reformation is required. These solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC) will run directly off of standard pressure natural gas. Just skip to ~7:35.






*Edit: And they confirmed that these units in the field are 50% efficient when running off of natural gas before scavenging the waste heat.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

They are 50% off the power from the hydrogen!!
Which is about 50% of the energy in the fuel 

Which is 25% in my book!


----------



## Ladogaboy (Apr 25, 2010)

Duncan said:


> They are 50% off the power from the hydrogen!!
> Which is about 50% of the energy in the fuel
> 
> Which is 25% in my book!


Did you even watch the video? The SOFC can hook up to a residential CNG and convert it directly to electricity with 50% conversion efficiency before scavenging heat. 

Are you really arguing that a range-extended EV with SOFC converting CNG is a worse solution than running CNG through an old diesel cycle internal combustion engine?


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

Ladogaboy said:


> Did you even watch the video? The SOFC can hook up to a residential CNG and convert it directly to electricity with 50% conversion efficiency before scavenging heat.
> 
> Are you really arguing that a range-extended EV with SOFC converting CNG is a worse solution than running CNG through an old diesel cycle internal combustion engine?


YES - because of the way they do their calculations!!

They are only using HALF of the energy in the CNG as their input - a 50% hit that is inevitable if you can only use the hydrogen - so that goes with the 60% (which is extremely questionable) - to start you at 30%
Then you need to convert to mechanical power to move the vehicle
A modern highly optimized diesel cycle using CNG can get 40% of the total energy - and its already "mechanical" no need for another conversion

Fuel cells are an old old idea - and like steam engines have limited usefulness


----------



## Ladogaboy (Apr 25, 2010)

Duncan said:


> YES - because of the way they do their calculations!!
> 
> They are only using HALF of the energy in the CNG as their input - a 50% hit that is inevitable if you can only use the hydrogen - so that goes with the 60% (which is extremely questionable) - to start you at 30%
> Then you need to convert to mechanical power to move the vehicle
> ...


Where are you getting your numbers? Where do they say they are only getting 50% of 6.5 kWh/kg (which is 50% of the energy content of CNG) when running SOFCs directly off of CNG?

And nowhere am I saying that fuel cells have broad sweeping usefulness, but in range-extended EVs, they make a lot more sense than diesel cycle engines burning CNG.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

OK lets look at some numbers
CNG is natural gas - AKA Methane - CH4 - the Hydrogen is 1/4 of the mass - 4 kg of methane will give you 1 kg of hydrogen
Methane will give you 55 Mega Joules per kg
Hydrogen will give you 120 Mega Joules per kg

So the MAXIMUM a fuel cell can get from Methane is the energy in the Hydrogen - 120 Mega Joules per kg divided by FOUR
That is 30 Mega Joules per kg of Methane 
That is 54% of the energy in the methane
So with a massively efficient fuel cell (60%) - we get 32%

That is the MAXIMUM possible - then we need to turn that into mechanical power - motors/inverters - 85%?
Down to 27%

And you are competing with a diesel using ALL the energy from the CNG at about 45%

NOT a good idea


----------



## Ladogaboy (Apr 25, 2010)

Duncan said:


> OK lets look at some numbers
> CNG is natural gas - AKA Methane - CH4 - the Hydrogen is 1/4 of the mass - 4 kg of methane will give you 1 kg of hydrogen
> Methane will give you 55 Mega Joules per kg
> Hydrogen will give you 120 Mega Joules per kg
> ...





https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy16osti/64267.pdf


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

Duncan said:


> OK lets look at some numbers
> CNG is natural gas - AKA Methane - CH4 - the Hydrogen is 1/4 of the mass - 4 kg of methane will give you 1 kg of hydrogen
> Methane will give you 55 Mega Joules per kg
> Hydrogen will give you 120 Mega Joules per kg
> ...


The only problem with this is the assumption that one methane molecule produces two atoms of hydrogen gas (H2). In the usual steam reformation the reaction is CH4 + H2O ⇌ CO + 3 H2 (but that consumes heat, ΔHr= 206 kJ/mol), and is usually followed by a water-gas shift reaction: CO + H2O ⇌ CO2 + H2. The net effect is CH4 + 2 H2O ⇌ CO2 + 4 H2 (which produces heat, ΔHr= -41 kJ/mol)... double the hydrogen yield, but only if water is available (it is the source of the extra hydrogen) and only if the heat energy is available to drive the reformation reaction. Instead of the water-gas shift reaction, the CO could be used by the cell directly to produce electricity, but I don't know if that happens in these cells, and even more heat would be required.

It would be helpful if Ceres or anyone else showed the actual reactions and energy flows of a direct-reforming fuel cell, because there are various possibilities.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

Ladogaboy said:


> You seem to be missing the point that these fuel cells can run off of CNG directly. No steam reformation is required. These solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC) will run directly off of standard pressure natural gas. Just skip to ~7:35.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


At 7:35 the Ceres rep and host are walking down the demo house hallway. There is no discussion of efficiency immediately before or after that.
At about 9:30 the Ceres rep mentions roughly 50% efficiency, with no specific values to back it up.

In the description of the cell construction (using the cell plate stages mounted on the wall), the Ceres rep explains that the methane is converted to hydrogen on the fuel side of the plate - the cell does not run directly on a reaction of methane.


----------



## Ladogaboy (Apr 25, 2010)

brian_ said:


> At 7:35 the Ceres rep and host are walking down the demo house hallway. There is no discussion of efficiency immediately before or after that.
> At about 9:30 the Ceres rep mentions roughly 50% efficiency, with no specific values to back it up.
> 
> In the description of the cell construction (using the cell plate stages mounted on the wall), the Ceres rep explains that the methane is converted to hydrogen on the fuel side of the plate - the cell does not run directly on a reaction of methane.


Ah, I must have misread the timestamp. Either way, my point was that the hydrogen doesn't need to be reformed, pumped, stored, transported, etc., all of which is what is typically referenced when HFC efficiency is questioned.

Also, per the DOE document I linked to previously, CNG cars running off of a gasoline engine are significantly less efficient than fuel cell, even when the hydrogen is separated and pumped at a steam reformation facility.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

Ladogaboy said:


> Ah, I must have misread the timestamp. Either way, my point was that the hydrogen doesn't need to be reformed, pumped, stored, transported, etc., all of which is what is typically referenced when HFC efficiency is questioned.


The storage and transportation of hydrogen are worse than for compressed natural gas, but the issues are similar. The reformation step always happens when methane is the source and a fuel cell is the conversion device - it's just a question of whether it happens at a processing plant, on the vehicle, or in the fuel cell.



Ladogaboy said:


> Also, per the DOE document I linked to previously, CNG cars running off of a gasoline engine are significantly less efficient than fuel cell, even when the hydrogen is separated and pumped at a steam reformation facility.


Not a "gasoline" engine, but a natural gas engine. The assumed efficiency in that report (16%) is very low, and lower than a compression-ignition (diesel) engine would be. Current gasoline engines used in hybrids run at up to 41% efficiency; the hybrid engine and battery system is needed to keep the engine near the optimal operating point, but fuel cell vehicles also need a hybrid fuel cell and battery system to be practical.


----------



## Ladogaboy (Apr 25, 2010)

brian_ said:


> Not a "gasoline" engine, but a natural gas engine. The assumed efficiency in that report (16%) is very low, and lower than a compression-ignition (diesel) engine would be. Current gasoline engines used in hybrids run at up to 41% efficiency; the hybrid engine and battery system is needed to keep the engine near the optimal operating point, but fuel cell vehicles also need a hybrid fuel cell and battery system to be practical.


The problem with internal combustion engines (even diesels), is that peak efficiency doesn't represent average efficiency. Given the internal losses due to the pumping and cycling, it would make sense that the _average_ efficiency is a little more than half the peak efficiency. 

Again, I haven't seen any documentation demonstrating an internal combustion running on CNG can even approach the peak efficiency that engine would see running diesel or petrol.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

Ladogaboy said:


> The problem with internal combustion engines (even diesels), is that peak efficiency doesn't represent average efficiency. Given the internal losses due to the pumping and cycling, it would make sense that the _average_ efficiency is a little more than half the peak efficiency.


That's why you use them in a hybrid. The worst part of a running a spark-ignition (e.g. gasoline) engine off of peak efficiency is the throttling loss due literally to the required partially closed throttle... but in a hybrid it never runs at anything but near full load. Compression-ignition engines (diesels) get less efficient at higher load (as the combustion duration gets longer as a fraction of the cycle time), but again you don't run them at very high load in a hybrid. The entire normal operating regime of a typical gas-electric hybrid car engine stays within a few percent of the ideal efficiency.



Ladogaboy said:


> Again, I haven't seen any documentation demonstrating an internal combustion running on CNG can even approach the peak efficiency that engine would see running diesel or petrol.


I don't have data handy, either, but there's no reason for efficiency to be substantially lower. Specific power output on any gaseous fuel is lower (simply because the fuel takes up space that would otherwise be air), but that doesn't hurt efficiency.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

brian_ said:


> I don't have data handy, either, but there's no reason for efficiency to be substantially lower. Specific power output on any gaseous fuel is lower (simply because the fuel takes up space that would otherwise be air), but that doesn't hurt efficiency.


With the Westport system the low power density is avoided as the engine compresses air and the gas is injected as it combusts


----------



## Ladogaboy (Apr 25, 2010)

brian_ said:


> I don't have data handy, either, but there's no reason for efficiency to be substantially lower. Specific power output on any gaseous fuel is lower (simply because the fuel takes up space that would otherwise be air), but that doesn't hurt efficiency.


If significant losses result from mechanical cycles, those losses would be the same regardless of fuel. Diesel is far more energy dense than natural gas, so each cycle would consume a greater percentage of the energy available in natural gas, resulting in reduced efficiency. The conversion efficiency of the fuel to energy might me the same, but the losses should be greater relative to the total energy output.

Either way, I'd love to see a data sheet demonstrating even a 50% conversion rate on CNG running through a diesel cycle engine.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

50% would be double the maximum from a fuel cell using CNG
As I previously showed that could only reach 25% on a massive stretch


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

Ladogaboy said:


> If significant losses result from mechanical cycles, those losses would be the same regardless of fuel. Diesel is far more energy dense than natural gas, so each cycle would consume a greater percentage of the energy available in natural gas, resulting in reduced efficiency. The conversion efficiency of the fuel to energy might me the same, but the losses should be greater relative to the total energy output.


Yes, but mechanical drag is a small part of the inefficiency of an engine.


----------



## Ladogaboy (Apr 25, 2010)

Duncan said:


> 50% would be double the maximum from a fuel cell using CNG
> As I previously showed that could only reach 25% on a massive stretch


This is another report out of the Idaho National Laboratory that appears to disagree with your conclusion:



https://inldigitallibrary.inl.gov/sites/sti/sti/3493256.pdf


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

Nope they are simply using a different measure
If you compare efficiency to the amount of energy in the hydrogen then you can get past 50% - but you still have the invertor and motor losses

But that is not a reasonable comparison as it ignores the losses in converting the CNG to hydrogen 

An engine burning the CNG starts with ALL of the energy


----------



## MattsAwesomeStuff (Aug 10, 2017)

Uh oh, more bad news.

I'll quote about a third of it:









Nikola founder charged with securities fraud over allegedly fake truck demo


The electric vehicle company lost a GM deal last year.




www.theverge.com




---
"In Southern District of New York federal court on Thursday, Nikola founder Trevor Milton was charged with securities fraud. The charges allege that Milton made a series of materially false claims which portrayed the electric vehicle company Nikola as far closer to releasing a functional product than it actually was, and raising more than $500 million of investment in the process.

“Milton sold a version of Nikola not as it was – an early stage company with a novel idea to commercialize yet-to-be proven products and technology – but rather as a trail-blazing company that had already achieved many groundbreaking and game-changing milestones,” the indictment alleges.

Specifically, the indictment argues Milton used a staged video to create the false impression its Nikola One semi truck prototype was capable of moving under its own power, when in fact the vehicle was simply rolling downhill. Additionally, Milton falsely claimed the company was producing its own hydrogen fuels at below-market rates and had obtained “billions and billions and billions and billions” of dollars worth of committed truck orders, according to the indictment."
----


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

MattsAwesomeStuff said:


> Uh oh, more bad news.
> 
> "In Southern District of New York federal court on Thursday, Nikola founder Trevor Milton was charged with securities fraud...."


Is it bad news? I think prosecution of frauds is good news, and the fraud itself isn't news at all.

I think the only surprise here is that anyone is actually being charged - the fraud is well-known, although some of the details were not.

One thing that is disturbing about the whole saga is that any major investor fell for this crap. Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are not trivial, but they have been around for many years and competent manufacturers have no problem building working examples - Toyota and others have been driving fuel cell heavy trucks around (in reality, not just marketing fantasy) for years, and fuel cells buses have been in service for many years. GM should not have considered investment without seeing a fully functional demonstration vehicle, extensive verifiable test results, and a convincing explanation of what this company had that others did not.
Toyota Unveils Second Generation Hydrogen Fuel Cell Truck
The Toyota demonstration truck was mentioned three years ago in this thread as proof that fuel cell trucks were viable and 2018 was "the start of the hydrogen transport age". In 2021, that age still hasn't started... and technology is no longer even novel.

Speaking of known for a long time...


Hollie Maea said:


> Faked. This truck has never driven and probably never will. I'm guessing they had a pusher that they photoshopped out (which is pretty easy to do these days).


So it turns out it was rolling downhill, and sped up in video processing. That was even easier than editing out a pusher


----------



## cricketo (Oct 4, 2018)

Every promising industry eventually attracts crooks.


----------



## MattsAwesomeStuff (Aug 10, 2017)

brian_ said:


> Is it bad news?


For Nikola and its founder, yep.

My comment was scornful.


----------



## Hollie Maea (Dec 9, 2009)

brian_ said:


> Speaking of known for a long time...
> 
> So it turns out it was rolling downhill, and sped up in video processing. That was even easier than editing out a pusher


Yeah, I overestimated them in this case!

The whole thing is sad. Six years ago they had a decent idea and some money. If they hadn't been headed up from a guy who was a liar, a fraud, a cheat, a thief and an idiot, they could have done some pretty great things.


----------



## cricketo (Oct 4, 2018)

Hollie Maea said:


> Yeah, I overestimated them in this case!
> 
> The whole thing is sad. Six years ago they had a decent idea and some money. If they hadn't been headed up from a guy who was a liar, a fraud, a cheat, a thief and an idiot, they could have done some pretty great things.


Hydrogen has always been an idea with a limited shelf life, kind of like hybrid vehicles. Once somebody works out the BEV version of a semi, the inherent complexity of the Hydrogen would quickly get give way to the elegance and simplicity of BEV. So if Nikola could deliver a working truck 5 years ago, they'd have a good market. At this point though it's way too late - as soon as Tesla starts rolling out their semis, Hydrogen as a concept will get discarded. 

There are many arguments floating around to suggest why Tesla Semi will not capture the entire market. Limited range they say, large weight, etc. Skeptics operate in the environment of the old paradigm. The new paradigm is that semi only needs to go 300 or so miles on a charge, charge for an hour, then go another 300 miles... without a human driver.


----------



## Hollie Maea (Dec 9, 2009)

cricketo said:


> Hydrogen has always been an idea with a limited shelf life, kind of like hybrid vehicles.


They weren't even going to be Hydrogen. The first design had a natural gas turbine. That turbine could burn Hydrogen as well at roughly the same efficiency as a fuel cell. So that could have easily been a bridge technology until batteries got better.

Like I said, they had money and they had a decent idea. But their leadership was trash.


----------



## cricketo (Oct 4, 2018)

Hollie Maea said:


> They weren't even going to be Hydrogen. The first design had a natural gas turbine. That turbine could burn Hydrogen as well at roughly the same efficiency as a fuel cell. So that could have easily been a bridge technology until batteries got better.
> 
> Like I said, they had money and they had a decent idea. But their leadership was trash.


I'm curious, why do you think an ICE semi running on Natural Gas is a good idea ?


----------



## Hollie Maea (Dec 9, 2009)

cricketo said:


> I'm curious, why do you think an ICE semi running on Natural Gas is a good idea ?


It's not. But five years ago, a natural gas series hybrid semi wasn't the worst idea. The truck had a 315 kWh battery, so quite a bit of electric range.


----------



## cricketo (Oct 4, 2018)

Oh I see, it was a hybrid at the time. Cool.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

cricketo said:


> Oh I see, it was a hybrid at the time. Cool.


The Nikola schemes have always been hybrids. They started with a natural gas turbine / battery hybrid, now are promoting a hydrogen fuel cell / battery hybrid, and as Hollie Maea explained they could have taken a hydrogen gas turbine / battery transition step.

All practical fuel cell vehicles are hybrids, for the same reasons that hybrid systems are used with engines.


----------

