Jump to content

Instead of going electric, Ford will be transitioning the Super Duty to hydrogen fuel cells


Recommended Posts

Not sure how well this will work if there is no infrastructure in place to fill up the vehicles with. I can see it working with fleet vehicles that have a centralized area that they operated from, but I don't see it quite working for the average person. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, zipnzap said:

I wonder if this is an inherent limitation of electric that can't be engineered out:

 

https://fordauthority.com/2022/10/ford-super-duty-lineup-will-probably-go-hydrogen-before-electric/

 

Comments section there is interesting nonetheless....

I think it is largely due to that ol' debbil energy density. The current Lightning weighs 6015 lbs. An SD would need a prohibitively large (physical size and Kwh capacity) battery to perform as the ICE SD does, cutting into payload and towing capacity. Charging times are another hurdle for fleets that require quick turnaround times that petro fueling offers. An HFC SD would be lighter than a BEV version, and replenishing H2 takes about as long as with diesel. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Chrisgb said:

I think it is largely due to that ol' debbil energy density. The current Lightning weighs 6015 lbs. An SD would need a prohibitively large (physical size and Kwh capacity) battery to perform as the ICE SD does, cutting into payload and towing capacity. Charging times are another hurdle for fleets that require quick turnaround times that petro fueling offers. An HFC SD would be lighter than a BEV version, and replenishing H2 takes about as long as with diesel. 

 

 

Advancements in battery tech and discovery of new materials are currently ongoing/being made at a steady pace.

 

This is something that can be fixed through simple tech advancements, correct?

Edited by zipnzap
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Chrisgb said:

I think it is largely due to that ol' debbil energy density. The current Lightning weighs 6015 lbs. An SD would need a prohibitively large (physical size and Kwh capacity) battery to perform as the ICE SD does, cutting into payload and towing capacity. Charging times are another hurdle for fleets that require quick turnaround times that petro fueling offers. An HFC SD would be lighter than a BEV version, and replenishing H2 takes about as long as with diesel. 

 

 

what about battery replacement for local fleets?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, zipnzap said:

Advancements in battery tech and discovery of new materials are currently ongoing/being made at a steady pace.

 

This is something that can be fixed through simple tech advancements, correct?

Let's hope and pray because the problems with H production, using more electricity to make than the energy provided by said H plus delivery, and associated leaks that may be worse for CC are questionable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hydrogen will make sense for some fleet operators but it won't for private buyers or any fleet that will depend on public fueling facilities which doesn't exist and too cost prohibitive to even contemplate on a scale comparable to current public EV charging infrastructure. 

 

But Ford is the leading provider of trucks to the kind of fleet operators that has the means to invest in localized hydrogen storage facility so Ford is probably the only OEM that has enough economy of scale to invest in hydrogen pickup trucks. The article basically fail to point out this obvious reality. Stellantis and GM doesn't sell as medium duty trucks to fleets as Ford so they can't make any serious investment in hydrogen (which will remain a niche market no matter what people wish). But noticed Ford's partnership is with natural gas companies and the fossil fuel industry... there is really no one out there seriously putting a lot of money in producing non-fossil fuel derived hydrogen, which is the problem. The math inevitably fails because hydrogen is grossly inefficient at energy storage so the money is better spent at improving other storage mediums with better upside. Hydrogen only makes sense economically if you are using natural gas as a feedstock. So all the money in promoting hydrogen is coming fossil fuel industry looking for a way to greenwash its product.

 

 

Edited by bzcat
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bzcat said:

The math inevitably fails because hydrogen is grossly inefficient at energy storage so the money is better spent at improving other storage mediums with better upside.


A VW comparison estimated hydrogen requires about 2-1/2 more energy overall.  Don’t know how accurate these numbers are, but estimated overall efficiency at 76% for BEV versus 30% for Hydrogen.

 

For larger trucks, ships, and airplanes, perhaps E-Fuels (E-Diesel) may be a better fit.  I haven’t seen overall efficiency, but if batteries are not practical, perhaps E-Fuels can get the job done.

 

https://www.volkswagenag.com/en/news/stories/2019/08/hydrogen-or-battery--that-is-the-question.html#

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rick73 said:

For larger trucks, ships, and airplanes, perhaps E-Fuels (E-Diesel) may be a better fit.  I haven’t seen overall efficiency, but if batteries are not practical, perhaps E-Fuels can get the job done.

 

With E-Fuels, wouldn't the engines used in large trucks, ships, and airplanes still be constrained by the upper limits of thermal efficiency for Otto, Diesel, Rankine, and Brayton cycles?

 

thermal-efficiency-engines-turbines-min.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, rperez817 said:

 

With E-Fuels, wouldn't the engines used in large trucks, ships, and airplanes still be constrained by the upper limits of thermal efficiency for Otto, Diesel, Rankine, and Brayton cycles?

 

 

Yes, I believe so.  But when batteries are not practical for whatever reason, what are other choices?

 

A jetliner flying across the Pacific can’t do it on batteries, but E-Fuels should work, though at a much higher fuel cost.  And if fuel is produced with nuclear or renewable, then GHGs are reduced significantly, or eliminated.  Same should apply for ships and trucks requiring more energy than batteries can store today.

 

I think you are implying that batteries have higher overall efficiency, and I agree they do; provided their added weight and volume do not contribute excessively to the vehicle’s added energy requirement.

 

If Tesla can build a Semi with 500 miles of range, I’m sure a Super Duty pickup with enough range can also be built, but if it required almost 500 kWh of battery capacity in order to tow a large trailer 300 miles or more, would it be practical?  Without looking into details, it seems that E-Diesel may be an option to consider if they can get price below $10 per gallon.  IMO a SD pickup requiring almost 500 kWh of battery capacity to be truly useful would not be viable.

 

As you know, the advantage to hydrogen is that the fuel itself stores much more energy per unit weight or volume compared to batteries, so range when towing would not be as limited.  I personally do not see enough advantages to hydrogen, but want to learn more about other E-Fuels; mainly E-Gasoline and E-Diesel.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Rick73 said:

As you know, the advantage to hydrogen is that the fuel itself stores much more energy per unit weight or volume compared to batteries, so range when towing would not be as limited.  I personally do not see enough advantages to hydrogen, but want to learn more about other E-Fuels; mainly E-Gasoline and E-Diesel.

 

The problem with E fuels is that to make them, it costs energy make them. So if your purely looking at this from a Co2 reduction perspective, it just doesn't make sense. When you burn an E fuel, it is just like using Gasoline or Diesel from crude, with all the CO2 and pollution aspects still applying to them. The "carbon neutral" part only comes if they are only produced using power using "green energy" like solar or wind, but they also require lots of powe to be made.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

 

The problem with E fuels is that to make them, it costs energy make them. So if you’re t purely looking at this from a Co2 reduction perspective, it just doesn't make sense. When you burn an E fuel, it is just like using Gasoline or Diesel from crude, with all the CO2 and pollution aspects still applying to them. The "carbon neutral" part only comes if they are only produced using power using "green energy" like solar or wind, but they also require lots of powe to be made.


It takes energy to make E-Fuels.  It takes energy to make hydrogen.  And it takes energy to charge BEV batteries.  I’m not following your point?

 

The main question is how much net gain is accomplished towards reducing Green House Gases.  When studies assume that electricity is 100% green with very little or no carbon dioxide at all, then it mainly becomes a matter of fuel costs and not an environmental problem.  If hydrogen fuel required 250% more energy than batteries, but electricity for both produced “NO” green house gases at all, should it matter other than higher fueling costs?

 

I expect Ford would rather design a BEV Super Duty if they can make it work, but if true that they are looking at hydrogen, it’s probably because they feel a BEV Super Duty is not commercially viable at this time.

 

 

By the way, E-Fuels are based on making them with nuclear or renewable fuels.  It makes no sense whatsoever to use coal- or gas-fired electricity to manufacture E-Diesel or E-Gasoline.  In my opinion it doesn’t make sense to charge BEVs with coal-fired electricity either, so it all comes down to how we view the electrical grid.  That’s a more complicated technical discussion I’d rather not argue again.

 

Below is from VW article I linked earlier.

 

 

8840F881-D280-4858-B7EB-A646C37E2551.thumb.jpeg.ed3ae5e2a6457f7ea7b815d18c3e7e95.jpegC431EE00-AFF3-4A2E-B356-39F63D8F8B8F.thumb.jpeg.267aabdcc36150757588f1d3e5cc180f.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/30/2023 at 12:12 PM, Captainp4 said:

As someone waiting on a BEV superduty that meets my needs, and looking at a Tesla semi going 500miles with 80k lbs... this is disappointing.

 

The updated long video below may shed light on why Ford hasn’t committed to a BEV Super Duty yet.

Tesla Semi performance and range capabilities may not be quite as good as some early reports and estimates.  Going primarily by the- 80,000-pound weight capability can be misleading. Bottom line is that Semi probably has at least between 800 and 900 kWh of battery capacity, which weigh around 10,000 pounds.  Also, range of 500 miles highway was likely achieved by driving slower than most Super Duty owners would want to drive, even when towing.  He estimates that driving faster, like 70 MPH as an example, would reduce  range to 358 miles.

 

I’m guessing Ford has estimated and or tested Super Duty’s range when towing a large 5th wheel camping trailer or similar, for example, and concluded it would require over 500 kWh of battery to provide same range as the available 48-gallon diesel tank.  Imagine how disappointed SD owners who add auxiliary fuel tanks to increase range would be.  I think they are wise to delay a BEV Super Duty for now.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The real issue here is the current limitation of batteries in terms of density/weight, actual range under full load and time taken to charge. In order to be viable for use in heavy trucks, batteries need to switch to something like sodium, have at least four times the current density and be able to recharge at unprecedented rates.

 

Until that happens, using hydrogen fuel or efficient ICE hybrids to improve overall efficiency are probably better short term solutions. Whatever Ford offers to fleets must make financial sense and result in significant savings.

Edited by jpd80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good points- If you scale down the Tesla semi's capabilities by about half you can see the power demands a BEV Super Duty would have, given that the Super Duty's 37k tow rating plus the Super Duty's own weight is at least around 44k pounds. That means a BEV Super Duty would need around a 500 KW 5K pound battery that would push the empty BEV Super Duty over the 10K weight threshold where logbooks and such are required. It gets worse- While the IC Super Duty can be refueled in a few minutes and a fresh driver can get behind the wheel, the BEV Super Duty will need hours to recharge it's batteries. And price? $100K Super Dutys are bad enough, is the market ready for a $200K BEV Super Duty that can be outworked by a diesel selling for half the price? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Might not be there yet, but I think with advancing battery technology a BEV Super Duty will be reality in 10 or so years.  Even California has set 2045 as a TENTATIVE date for a zero-emission truck mandate.  Who knows, if BEV's passenger vehicles are widely adopted in the next few years there may be less emphasis on abandoning ICE trucks altogether, particularly if advances are made in fuels.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Rick73 said:

 

The updated long video below may shed light on why Ford hasn’t committed to a BEV Super Duty yet.

Tesla Semi performance and range capabilities may not be quite as good as some early reports and estimates.  Going primarily by the- 80,000-pound weight capability can be misleading. Bottom line is that Semi probably has at least between 800 and 900 kWh of battery capacity, which weigh around 10,000 pounds.  Also, range of 500 miles highway was likely achieved by driving slower than most Super Duty owners would want to drive, even when towing.  He estimates that driving faster, like 70 MPH as an example, would reduce  range to 358 miles.

 

I’m guessing Ford has estimated and or tested Super Duty’s range when towing a large 5th wheel camping trailer or similar, for example, and concluded it would require over 500 kWh of battery to provide same range as the available 48-gallon diesel tank.  Imagine how disappointed SD owners who add auxiliary fuel tanks to increase range would be.  I think they are wise to delay a BEV Super Duty for now.

 

 

 



Same as the Tesla Semi, it makes sense for some use cases and not for others.

For ME, a BEV Superduty is exactly what I need. Truck drives well under 100 miles a day with <10k lbs behind it on set routes and goes back to same place it started every day. I get ~250 miles out of a tank of fuel (6.4 diesel, it's a fuel sucking pig getting 7-8mpg) which lasts the work week for me. It never sees speeds higher than 55-60 during the work week and less than 30 in neighborhoods most of the time.

I'd likely still keep the 6.4 for towing the toys on longer trips until charge time/infrastructure is improved.

That said, I would consider a plug in hybrid to do both if it came with the features the F150 version has.

I also realize I could probably squeak by on ratings with a half ton, but my work truck has a trailer on it 95% of the time and I'd be concerned about longevity being at or close to max load that often.

Maybe I'll buy a cybertruck ? (just kidding, that thing is hideous)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Captainp4 said:

For ME, a BEV Superduty is exactly what I need. Truck drives well under 100 miles a day with <10k lbs behind it on set routes and goes back to same place it started every day. I get ~250 miles out of a tank of fuel (6.4 diesel, it's a fuel sucking pig getting 7-8mpg) which lasts the work week for me. It never sees speeds higher than 55-60 during the work week and less than 30 in neighborhoods most of the time.


What size trailer are you pulling that reduces diesel fuel economy to 7~8 MPG?

 

After watching video, I did a couple of quick reality checks myself to confirm estimates were realistic.  The first is that large pickups in Super Duty class, when towing large trailers with a lot of aerodynamic drag, often consume much more than 50% of the fuel per mile that the latest and most efficient Semi burn.  When towing a large camping trailer 8-1/2 feet wide and 13-feet tall at highway speeds, diesel pickups usually do not get double the MPG of most fuel efficient Semi which would be comparable to the Tesla.  I know large semi diesel engines are likely more efficient than latest Power Stroke, but differences aren’t that great.  To tow a large 5th wheel camper, a SD would realistically need much more than 50% of the Tesla’s battery capacity to travel same distance.  I’m guessing 6-8 versus 8-10 MPG is a fair comparison for latest semi versus SD towing.  It would not be double the MPG which is 50% the power.

 

The other reality check is that modern diesels should be able to easily make 15 kWh of energy at flywheel per gallon of fuel (based on published data), which means SD pickup with 48 gallon tank has equivalent of about 700 kWh of battery capacity.  Starting from flywheel back the diesel has transmission and driveshaft losses, but BEV pickup starting from batteries has inverter and motor inefficiencies which are in similar ballpark.

 

Realistically, a SD pickup may only have +/- 50% of GCWR (40,000- versus 80,000-pounds), but would require more than 50% of the Tesla Semi’s battery capacity to perform at present SD towing capabilities.  If you only need 100 miles of range, that is completely different, but I think it would be a mistake to offer a BEV Super Duty with a limited range similar to BEV Transit (< 120 miles), even if that 120 miles was while towing.

 

Also, cold weather would affect a BEV SD more than a diesel, and range per charge on long trips would be worse than estimated above because battery would be charged to 80%, while diesel tank would be filled to 100%.  There is likely some BEV SD demand, but I wonder if it’s enough to justify the investment, or risking F-Series reputation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rick73 said:


What size trailer are you pulling that reduces diesel fuel economy to 7~8 MPG?

 

After watching video, I did a couple of quick reality checks myself to confirm estimates were realistic.  The first is that large pickups in Super Duty class, when towing large trailers with a lot of aerodynamic drag, often consume much more than 50% of the fuel per mile that the latest and most efficient Semi burn.  When towing a large camping trailer 8-1/2 feet wide and 13-feet tall at highway speeds, diesel pickups usually do not get double the MPG of most fuel efficient Semi which would be comparable to the Tesla.  I know large semi diesel engines are likely more efficient than latest Power Stroke, but differences aren’t that great.  To tow a large 5th wheel camper, a SD would realistically need much more than 50% of the Tesla’s battery capacity to travel same distance.  I’m guessing 6-8 versus 8-10 MPG is a fair comparison for latest semi versus SD towing.  It would not be double the MPG which is 50% the power.

 

The other reality check is that modern diesels should be able to easily make 15 kWh of energy at flywheel per gallon of fuel (based on published data), which means SD pickup with 48 gallon tank has equivalent of about 700 kWh of battery capacity.  Starting from flywheel back the diesel has transmission and driveshaft losses, but BEV pickup starting from batteries has inverter and motor inefficiencies which are in similar ballpark.

 

Realistically, a SD pickup may only have +/- 50% of GCWR (40,000- versus 80,000-pounds), but would require more than 50% of the Tesla Semi’s battery capacity to perform at present SD towing capabilities.  If you only need 100 miles of range, that is completely different, but I think it would be a mistake to offer a BEV Super Duty with a limited range similar to BEV Transit (< 120 miles), even if that 120 miles was while towing.

 

Also, cold weather would affect a BEV SD more than a diesel, and range per charge on long trips would be worse than estimated above because battery would be charged to 80%, while diesel tank would be filled to 100%.  There is likely some BEV SD demand, but I wonder if it’s enough to justify the investment, or risking F-Series reputation.


It's a 28 ft enclosed trailer for my lawn equipment, but almost all of the driving is low speed "city" style driving - where a BEV should shine. I'm in the process of converting some equipment over to battery and just put together a solar/battery system to install on the trailer - still waiting for it to show up. Less noise and gas stink is appealing, and the equipment I have converted so far is lighter and has more power than the gas equivalents they replaced.

Cold weather isn't a concern for me, we aren't cutting grass when it's winter time.

200-250 miles of range with the trailer would be fine for my use.

Whether it makes sense for Ford to make or if there are many others like me that could use it isn't for me to decide (Ford apparently has decided it's not there yet), just stating what would work for my use case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Captainp4 said:


It's a 28 ft enclosed trailer for my lawn equipment, but almost all of the driving is low speed "city" style driving - where a BEV should shine. I'm in the process of converting some equipment over to battery and just put together a solar/battery system to install on the trailer - still waiting for it to show up. Less noise and gas stink is appealing, and the equipment I have converted so far is lighter and has more power than the gas equivalents they replaced.

Cold weather isn't a concern for me, we aren't cutting grass when it's winter time.

200-250 miles of range with the trailer would be fine for my use.

Whether it makes sense for Ford to make or if there are many others like me that could use it isn't for me to decide (Ford apparently has decided it's not there yet), just stating what would work for my use case.

+++, I swapped out our gas lawn equipment 7 years ago.  I gave my son all my gas mowers, trimmers and edgers, cans, sparkplug wrench, and oil cans.  Never have to change the oil, clean air filters, or get gas.  Just remember to charge the batteries for mowers, trimmers, edgers, and blowers.  Easy peasy.

 

Can't wait to get BEV, have a C-Max but even less maintenance with BEV.

Edited by tarheels23
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Rick73 said:


What size trailer are you pulling that reduces diesel fuel economy to 7~8 MPG?

 

After watching video, I did a couple of quick reality checks myself to confirm estimates were realistic.  The first is that large pickups in Super Duty class, when towing large trailers with a lot of aerodynamic drag, often consume much more than 50% of the fuel per mile that the latest and most efficient Semi burn.  When towing a large camping trailer 8-1/2 feet wide and 13-feet tall at highway speeds, diesel pickups usually do not get double the MPG of most fuel efficient Semi which would be comparable to the Tesla.  I know large semi diesel engines are likely more efficient than latest Power Stroke, but differences aren’t that great.  To tow a large 5th wheel camper, a SD would realistically need much more than 50% of the Tesla’s battery capacity to travel same distance.  I’m guessing 6-8 versus 8-10 MPG is a fair comparison for latest semi versus SD towing.  It would not be double the MPG which is 50% the power.

 

The other reality check is that modern diesels should be able to easily make 15 kWh of energy at flywheel per gallon of fuel (based on published data), which means SD pickup with 48 gallon tank has equivalent of about 700 kWh of battery capacity.  Starting from flywheel back the diesel has transmission and driveshaft losses, but BEV pickup starting from batteries has inverter and motor inefficiencies which are in similar ballpark.

 

Realistically, a SD pickup may only have +/- 50% of GCWR (40,000- versus 80,000-pounds), but would require more than 50% of the Tesla Semi’s battery capacity to perform at present SD towing capabilities.  If you only need 100 miles of range, that is completely different, but I think it would be a mistake to offer a BEV Super Duty with a limited range similar to BEV Transit (< 120 miles), even if that 120 miles was while towing.

 

Also, cold weather would affect a BEV SD more than a diesel, and range per charge on long trips would be worse than estimated above because battery would be charged to 80%, while diesel tank would be filled to 100%.  There is likely some BEV SD demand, but I wonder if it’s enough to justify the investment, or risking F-Series reputation.

 

Here is my experience towing a large trailer.

 

I tow a 41' 5th wheel that is 16,500 lbs and 13' 04" in height. Haven't towed much yet with the 22 F-450, so don't have good fuel consumption numbers. However, with the 2016 F-350 DRW I got a shade over 15 mpg (imperial gallon) overall when towing. With the 2013 F-350 SRW I averaged about 17 mpg (imperial gallon). Lots of trips over and through the Rockies and mostly highway speeds. With the 10-speed in the 22 F-450, I expect similar results to the F-350 DRW.

 

Not sure what semis get, but I would be surprised if I use 50% more fuel.

 

Range with the F-350 DRW towing was 450 miles. I expect 450, possibly up to 500 miles with the F-450, if I go easy on the accelerator.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/28/2023 at 9:36 PM, silvrsvt said:

Not sure how well this will work if there is no infrastructure in place to fill up the vehicles with. I can see it working with fleet vehicles that have a centralized area that they operated from, but I don't see it quite working for the average person. 

Fuel cells can convert natural gas to hydrogen and electricity, so the “fuel” would probably be CNG and that would probably suit most industrial businesses and maybe some retail based vehicles. It’s a nice alternative to lithium based battery tech - I wonder how many are actually considering as an extension of existing CNG use……

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/28/2023 at 7:10 PM, bzcat said:

But noticed Ford's partnership is with natural gas companies and the fossil fuel industry... there is really no one out there seriously putting a lot of money in producing non-fossil fuel derived hydrogen, which is the problem. The math inevitably fails because hydrogen is grossly inefficient at energy storage so the money is better spent at improving other storage mediums with better upside. Hydrogen only makes sense economically if you are using natural gas as a feedstock. So all the money in promoting hydrogen is coming fossil fuel industry looking for a way to greenwash its product.

 

Thanks for the info bzcat. Ford's partnership with natural gas companies and the fossil fuel industry is a huge risk. The greenwashing aspect makes the fossil fuel industry subject to climate related litigation, and automakers who partner with such companies may be targets as well.

 

While FCEV may make sense in a limited set of applications, BEV is much more energy efficient well to wheel. Hopefully Ford has a BEV version of F-Series Super Duty in production before the end of the decade.

 

uuk9kK0DGEyYBbG0L8c8eOrUig273_Hhc-Ri6Qj4

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...