$360M Discrepancy In Brampton Research: Hydrogen Combine Falsely Positioned As Decrease Price Choice

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

In latest days I’ve turn out to be conscious {that a} purportedly impartial and data-centric transit group, the Canadian City Transit Analysis and Innovation Consortium (CUTRIC), has been advancing hydrogen for city transit in contradiction of worldwide proof of failure. A contact forwarded me a extra detailed examine that they’d carried out for the Canadian metropolis of Brampton, one which led town’s transit workers to advocate adopting hydrogen buses as a part of their combine. The examine has some obvious challenges that create a fiscal swing nearly 40 occasions larger than the successful state of affairs’s price variance over a pure battery-electric state of affairs that are value calling out.

That is half of what’s turning out to be a mini-series with CUTRIC as a predominant character. My assumption define within the first evaluation, Canadian Metropolis About To Purchase Hydrogen Buses As a result of Feds & CUTRIC Captured by Hydrogen Foyer, was {that a} good group had been spun by the moderately massive variety of gasoline distribution corporations and hydrogen lobbyists that had turn out to be members. Actually, why are pure gasoline distributors and lobbyists Fortis BC, Fortis Alberta, and Enbridge members of an city transit analysis group whose mission contains:

“CUTRIC’s work generates options that lower gas consumption, scale back emissions, get rid of redundancies, scale back congestion, enhance the standard of life for Canadians, advance the digital integration of low-cost mobility options for city, sub-urban, rural and distant communities throughout Canada, improve highway security and scale back highway accidents. CUTRIC helps the applied sciences required for a twenty first century low-carbon financial system.”

In that piece, I went world wide taking a look at knowledge from hydrogen fleet trial after hydrogen fleet trial. Empirically, the next statements are unequivocal:

• Hydrogen buses price much more than battery-electric buses.
• Battery-electric buses are getting cheaper and hydrogen buses aren’t.
• Batteries are getting cheaper and hydrogen isn’t.
• Electrical bus vary is growing whereas hydrogen stays the identical.
• Battery-electric buses are rather more environment friendly — wind turbine to wheel — than hydrogen buses.
• Hydrogen refueling services are rather more costly than electrical charging services.
• Hydrogen refueling services have very excessive failure charges and upkeep prices.
• Hydrogen electrolysis services for transit have very excessive failure charges and upkeep prices.
• Hydrogen buses have a lot greater upkeep prices than battery-electric buses and are out of service rather more.
• Hydrogen buses have a lot greater nicely or wind turbine to wheel greenhouse gasoline emissions than battery-electric buses.
• Hydrogen buses can’t get warranties match for transit operators, whereas battery-electric buses can.

The piece supplied knowledge and references from California’s a number of bus fleets and 55 hydrogen refueling stations. It supplied knowledge from European hydrogen transportation annual standing studies. It supplied knowledge from Quebec’s failed hydrogen fleet pilot. It supplied data from bus trials in Whistler, Spain, and London.

Empirical proof, not hypothetical fashions or vendor claims, reveals that hydrogen is a horrible alternative for city transit. Prices are a lot greater, reliability is way decrease, emissions are a lot greater and the trajectory isn’t remotely one that’s displaying any enchancment. 25 years of trials haven’t resulted in hydrogen gas cell buses and associated infrastructure enhancing considerably. The situations for the sorts of enhancements seen with battery-electric drivetrains don’t apply to hydrogen.

The second piece, Mississauga Might Get A Dozen Electrical Buses For The Price Of 5 Hydrogen Ones, utilized a light-weight model of Professor Bent Flyvbjerg’s reference class forecasting to capital, upkeep prices for hydrogen vs battery-electric buses. As soon as once more, taking a look at actual world case research and knowledge from Europe and North America of precise outcomes, reasonable numbers had been utilized to the elements and prices. Empirical actuality finds hydrogen buses are vastly costlier than battery-electric ones, swamping all issues with battery-electric buses.

The Metropolis of Brampton has additionally been topic to the CUTRIC course of and metropolis workers didn’t do the mandatory due diligence of checking with different transit operators globally which had been sucked into the identical vortex in earlier iterations. In consequence, they believed CUTRIC’s knowledge was correct and that they had been making the proper choice. In consequence, on April tenth, 2024, they endorsed the CUTRIC examine. Brampton is now heading down the trail of together with hydrogen within the combine for decarbonizing transport and can waste quite a lot of time, cash, and political goodwill from its residents because of this.

However it does give extra materials to evaluate to attempt to determine the place CUTRIC has gone so incorrect, and oh boy, are there some doozies. The CUTRIC report is publicly obtainable data by way of the Brampton municipal web site, so its outcomes are freely obtainable to evaluate and share.

First, a transparent assertion. It’s not all unhealthy. CUTRIC isn’t recommending hydrogen for the whole lot, they’re recommending a majority of buses be electrical. Nonetheless, the ratio is 724 electrical buses to 408 hydrogen buses. They assert based mostly on their price workups that this blended fleet can be probably the most economical choice. Nonetheless, the distinction of their price solid — one which doesn’t stand as much as scrutiny — solely managed to realize a slight financial savings with $8.94 billion vs $8.95 billion for the complete battery-electric state of affairs.

That’s a 0.1% variance in price between the eventualities, which is to say from a planning perspective, a non-existent hole far contained in the error bars. That that is being promoted within the following means within the govt abstract is exceptional.

“This answer is probably the most financially viable costing lower than State of affairs One (full E BEB answer) or State of affairs Two (full FCEB answer).”

On the degree of granularity of the report and the findings, this could have been represented as them being of equal price. Nonetheless, the hydrogen and battery-electric numbers have such severe issues that the truth is they’re much additional aside, and in favor of the battery-electric solely state of affairs.

Let’s begin with the very first drawback, the price of hydrogen. The prices within the report for inexperienced hydrogen aren’t unhealthy, truly, however the prices for grey hydrogen are exceptional. As I famous within the reference class estimation piece in opposition to Mississauga based mostly on US DOE studies of actuals, the true price of delivered hydrogen in Ontario will likely be within the vary of $16, and for an answer that solely reduces emissions by 50% over diesel. That was with no latest peer-reviewed examine in Nature out of Europe discovering that hydrogen services in Groningen leak 4.2% of the hydrogen contained, and hydrogen has a GWP20 of 37 and a GWP100 of 12. That provides about 8.7 tons of CO2e per bus per yr to the 30 tons from manufacturing grey hydrogen, additional lowering any precise local weather advantages.

The report, and therefore Brampton, assumes grey hydrogen will price $8 delivered. For context, within the industrial heartland of Europe, the place grey hydrogen is manufactured by steam reformation and delivered by pipeline to main industrial customers, the associated fee per kilogram is $9 to $12 Canadian. That’s the most cost effective doable hydrogen. The transit group will likely be receiving it by truck at a lot better expense.

Brampton leans into grey hydrogen with this assertion:

“A combined fleet answer can leverage gray hydrogen provides in Ontario whereas shifting towards more and more decrease carbon intense (inexperienced) hydrogen provides by 2040.”

The distinction between doubtless delivered price of grey hydrogen vs CUTRIC’s low price level alone is within the vary of $200 million extra prices for the combined state of affairs, 20 occasions the variance. Correct costing for grey hydrogen alone will increase the combined fleet price case above the battery-electric solely price case.

Subsequent now we have prices for storing and pumping the hydrogen at Bramptons two main bus yards, Sandalwood and Clark. Bear in mind, that is for 408 hydrogen buses between the 2 services, with 30,000 kilograms of storage between them. They price this at $3 million for every, and embody a hydrogen supply system (delivers gas to the company), hydrogen storage tank(s), vaporizer (for liquid storage), compressor, chiller, and a allotting system (delivers the gas to the car).

For context, bus refueling services with out liquid hydrogen storage in California run CA$4 million every for US DOE studies on the services there. Including hydrogen liquification will increase prices considerably. As an information level, the one automotive at a time facility in Quebec Metropolis for its now deserted hydrogen fleet price $5.2 million. That didn’t embody liquification, however did embody roughly equivalently costly electrolysis services. That facility served 46 governmental hydrogen automobiles that averaged 2,600 kilometers of driving per yr every, not 408 buses working 70,000 kilometers a yr every with 10 occasions the hydrogen demand for a similar distance traveled.

Actual world knowledge on hydrogen refueling and liquification prices globally make it clear that there isn’t a world by which two hydrogen liquification, storage, compression, and allotting services will price solely $6 million Canadian. Sensible prices for this level alone are doubtless within the vary of the $10 million variance.

CUTRIC seems to suppose that batteries haven’t modified in 5 years, or maybe longer, and aren’t altering additional. As famous within the first article, EV batteries more and more don’t include cobalt anymore, with lithium phosphate iron chemistries dominating together with low-cobalt lithium-ion chemistries, and battery minerals aren’t notably scarce or costly, but CUTRIC calls out costly and scarce minerals for batteries as a priority.

One of many knowledge factors on this from the report, the place they’ve their underlying assumptions listed, is that they cite the substitute battery pack for electrical buses being required each 6-7 years and costing $260,000 every time.

Let’s simply tear that $260,000 aside. Their common battery dimension assumption seems to be 500 kWh, 5 occasions as a lot as a Tesla Mannequin X or Y. Changing a Tesla battery prices within the vary of $25,000 in 2024. The primary drawback with their assumption is that they’re assuming double the substitute price presently skilled as we speak.

The second drawback is that they’re assuming that that price doesn’t decline at everywhere in the nearly twenty years of the examine interval. Battery prices have been plummeting globally and so have battery packs because of this. We’re, with finish of 2024 battery value factors of $77 per kWh for LFP batteries from CATL, beginning to see stability of battery pack prices equaling and exceeding battery prices, however we’re simply beginning to flatten off on that ratio. I do know this as a result of one among my skilled engagements this yr was working with a European infrastructure funding fund centered on grid storage on precisely this level.

The third drawback is that they’re assuming 6- to 7-year replacements. Present knowledge on battery-electric autos and fleets globally is that batteries are outlasting autos. As famous in a earlier article on this examine, Chinese language OEMs are providing 8-year full drivetrain warranties on buses, together with the batteries. CATL, the world’s largest EV battery producer, is warrantying its new batteries for 1.6 million kilometers or 15 years. That’s double the space and equal to the 15-year lifespan within the CUTRIC examine. The 6-7 years is at greatest defensible as conservative, not like many different assumptions within the report, however it’s not remotely defensible when projecting battery replacements in 2032 and 2038.

The fourth drawback is the comparability to gas cell buses. They’re asserting, appropriately, that gas cell methods and battery substitute is costlier than simply batteries. They’re, nevertheless, asserting the identical 6- to 7-year substitute cycle. The worldwide actuality is 3-year lifecycles for gas cells working with heavy responsibility cycles in city environments. Regardless of spending extraordinary quantities of cash on making an attempt to harden gas cells over the previous 20 years, the EU’s IMMORTAL program hasn’t achieved remotely good outcomes.

A extra correct modeling assumption given world empirical actuality can be a 7- to 8-year substitute for battery-electric buses and a 3- to 4-year substitute for gas cells, together with decrease battery pack substitute prices and declining battery pack substitute prices with every subsequent yr.

Given 408 hydrogen buses, changing their gas cells 4 occasions over their lifespans would price $50 million, as soon as once more exceeding the $10 million variance between the purportedly cheaper blended answer and the complete battery-electric answer.

Equally, within the full battery-electric answer, costing battery pack substitute and timing precisely per world empirical knowledge would lower its prices considerably. Per the report, 1,161 battery-electric buses can be required within the full battery-electric choice. At extra reasonable declining battery substitute prices with one substitute within the lifecycle of the car as a substitute of two, that’s a roughly $150 million swing in that state of affairs’s prices. As soon as once more, this swamps the $10 million variance between the eventualities.

As a word on that 1,161 battery-electric autos, sharp eyes will discover that 408 hydrogen buses plus 724 battery-electric buses equals 1,132 buses. That’s a 29-bus variance from the combined state of affairs. Regardless of this, the primary drawback listed for the battery-electric bus solely state of affairs is the next:

“Requires substantial progress within the fleet dimension with lots of of extra buses essential to realize full decarbonization over the bottom case state of affairs”

A 2.5% variance in variety of buses will get labeled as lots of of buses further, whereas the combined state of affairs, which has nearly precisely the identical variety of buses, is just not talked about as requiring just about the identical variety of buses. What’s going on? Amusingly, the hydrogen solely state of affairs requires a few hundred extra buses than both the battery or combined state of affairs, but solely has the next listed because the second drawback.

“Leads to the most important variety of autos required to realize full decarbonization in Brampton”

Correct, however not hyperbolic, as is the case with the battery-only alternative. No matter oddities of language, and having written a large number of consulting studies, I do know oddities creep in and aren’t caught, as soon as once more the distinction in buses between the complete battery-electric state of affairs and the combined state of affairs isn’t materials given the coarseness of the estimation.

One other key level on CUTRIC’s battery assumptions is that not solely do batteries by no means get cheaper, they by no means get denser. Buses bought in 2038 seem to have the identical vary as buses obtainable in 2020. This regardless of CATL delivering batteries with double the vitality density per kilogram of the cells within the Tesla Semi in 2024, and now providing 20% greater vitality density in lithium iron phosphate cells as nicely.

CUTRIC’s modeling on batteries makes them rather more costly, whereas hydrogen gas cells are given a number of thumbs on the size.

One other drawback emerges after we have a look at this chart from the report. The darkish grey bar on the backside of the battery electrical buses bar is equal to the a lot darker bar on the backside of the gas cell buses bar. As famous earlier, the leakage of hydrogen with its GWP20 of 37 and GWP100 of 12 are ignored in CUTRIC’s modeling, so the numbers are low regardless.

Nonetheless, inexperienced hydrogen choice is manufacturing hydrogen, compressing it, trucking it, liquifying it, and pumping it into decrease effectivity gas cell buses with grid electrical energy in Ontario as a substitute of simply utilizing the grid electrical energy straight. Because the earlier two articles made clear with references from Europe and elsewhere, battery-electric buses are about 3 times extra environment friendly in the usage of electrical energy as hydrogen buses. The darkish bar for gas cell emissions ought to be 3 times the peak of the battery-electric darker grey bar, however is simply twice the peak. One assumes that their mannequin creates these charts and are correct representations of underlying numbers, so this means one other error of their modeling.

Nonetheless, this pales compared to one other level. The report posits a lot of grey hydrogen getting used and certainly the Brampton transit workers report makes that clear. Nonetheless, at no level is the value of the federal carbon value thought of in opposition to the value of the gas.

As famous in earlier articles, Ontario’s electrical energy is pretty low carbon, albeit rising considerably attributable to unhealthy provincial governmental insurance policies and nonetheless a lot greater than neighboring Manitoba and Quebec. However the emissions from the grey hydrogen are excessive and aren’t priced.

Manufacturing hydrogen with steam reformation emits 10-12 kilograms of CO2e per kilogram of hydrogen at current, excluding hydrogen leakage. A hydrogen gas cell bus, over its lifecycle if utilizing grey hydrogen, per CUTRIC calculations will emit round 375,000 tons of CO2e.

At $170 per ton of CO2e, Canada’s carbon value within the quickly approaching 2030 and for the 408 gas cell buses represents one other price within the vary of $25 million, as soon as once more and by itself exceeding the $10 million variance between full battery-electric and the hydrogen choice. Whereas Canada’s carbon value is in danger attributable to populist and uninformed rhetoric at current, no rational transit company would ignore the implications of its prices of their finances projections, or for that matter exclude the very doubtless addition of hydrogen to it within the coming years.

As a word on this graph, its vertical axis is labeled NPV, that’s web current worth. However that is web current prices, not worth. The dearth of high quality in labeling fundamental materials, one thing doubtless repeated in transit report after transit report, is par for the course for CUTRIC. Michael Raynor, former managing director of Deloitte, writer of a few books on technique and innovation and now working a carbon insets startup, caught that in discussions as we speak. It’s simply shoddy work.

This evaluation of precise vs CUTRIC prices for the blended state of affairs finds the next:

• $200 million further for grey hydrogen prices
• $10 million further for hydrogen storage and refueling services
• $25 million further in prices for hydrogen gas cell replacements
• $100 million much less for substitute of batteries in battery-electric buses
• $25 million further for carbon pricing for grey hydrogen

The $10 million variance that’s constructive for the blended state of affairs turns into a variance of about $360 million in favor of battery-electric buses solely. That grey hydrogen gas cell bus price bar is way, a lot taller. Oh, and on the discount of large quantities of greenhouse gasoline emissions too, which is the purpose of this train.