Here’s a quick round up of alternative fuel news from this week.

Electric Dream?

This week’s Commercial Vehicle Show at the Birmingham NEC has seen a host of new vehicle announcements - not least from electric vehicle manufacturers and converters.

Commercial Motor Editor Brian Wetherley has posted a review of some of the most interesting electric contenders on his Big Lorry Blog and it is encouraging to see some of the electric vehicle companies I have previously written about making a high profile appearance at this major trade show and getting interest from major fleet operators.

It’s not hard to imagine that electric vans and light trucks could become popular with van hire companies in urban areas, too. In London especially, the tightening rules in place in the LEZ (Low Emissions Zone) mean that operating zero emission electric vehicles might be of financial benefit for both the hirer and the hire company.

UK’s First Hydrogen Fuel Station

This week also saw the opening of the UK’s first hydrogen fuel station at the University of Birmingham. The university - which is home to a number of research initiatives into fuel cells and alternative fuels - will run five hydrogen vehicles alongside its existing fleet of electric, petrol and diesel vehicles in order to learn more about the performance and efficiency of such vehicles.

The hydrogen fuel station has been installed by leading hydrogen supplier Air Products and is able to fuel around six hydrogen vehicles each day - but the hydrogen fuelling plant has been specifically designed for compact, easy installation and is only intended for limited scale usage at present. As I wrote about recently, such hydrogen fuel stations generally only require mains electricity and water, making them easy to install and adapt for mobile use.

Mainstream car makers experimenting with hydrogen vehicles are keen to encourage hydrogen fuel stations, due to the ‘chicken and egg’ scenario currently faced. Even when efficient, affordable hydrogen-powered vehicles are available, there is no fuelling infrastructure in the UK or Europe to make their use possible.

Although hydrogen fuel is zero emission when in use, producing hydrogen remains quite costly in energy terms. I think it’s still an open question as to whether electricity or hydrogen will win the race to become the next mainstream fuel - my gut tells me it might be electricity, but what do I know?

Well, perhaps I exaggerate a little.

All the same, the EU have come out with a remarkably fast u-turn on the issue of compulsory use of biofuels in all forecourt fuels, following widespread criticism of this issue. The EU’s target of 10% biofuels in all vehicle fuel by 2020 now looks likely to be changed, or at least have significant conditions attached to it.

The argument is that while biofuels themselves may have low emissions, the growth of the crops they are made from can often result in biofuels having a higher carbon footprint than the mineral oil-based fuels they are supposed to replace. Biofuels have also been widely criticised for causing food production to be sacrificed for biofuel crops, contributing to rising food prices globally.

The European Environment Agency has now ordered a “new, comprehensive scientific study on the environmental risks and benefits of biofuels” following the publication of a report by leading climate scientists which calls for the suspension of the 10% biofuels policy.

The report states that “the over-ambitious 10% biofuels target is an experiment whose unintended effects are difficult to predict and difficult to control.” Germany has already announced that it will be toning down its biofuel policies but it is the only EU state to have done so to date.

What’s This About Coal?

In the same week that the EU’s biofuel targets started to look in doubt, the European Parliament has requested a €60m annual research fund to investigate ways of producing low-emission motor fuels, such as hydrogen, from coal.

The project is part of a wider initiative to develop ‘greener’ uses for coal.

Emission-free hydrogen-powered vans may be a reality on UK roads sooner than you think, thanks to a new partnership between two of the leading players in the drive to bring hydrogen to the automotive world.

ITM Power and Roush Technologies have formed a partnership to trial hydrogen-powered commercial vehicles in the UK. Roush Technologies are an automotive engineering company with considerable experience of the commercial vehicle sector. Roush will be responsible for modifying existing vehicles to run on hydrogen and for researching new types of hydrogen power units.

Meanwhile, ITM Power will provide the essential and hitherto missing link - a viable hydrogen refuelling solution. Over the last year, ITM have perfected a standalone hydrogen generation facility that will allow vehicle operators to generate their own hydrogen, on site.

ITM and Roush hope that their integrated, comprehensive solution will convince commercial operators that hydrogen is feasible and attractive as a commercial vehicle fuel - ITM CEO Jim Heathcote says that the two companies “are committed to bringing practical hydrogen power into the automotive market place within a dramatically reduced timeframe.”

ITM’s electrolyser has been patented and is due to enter production at their Sheffield facility later in 2008. Once it’s installed, all that the electolyser requires to generate hydrogen fuel is electricity and water - both readily available through an established distribution network! The obvious question, given what we already know about hydrogen fuel is just how much electricty and water does it need?

The electrolysis process used to produce hydrogen vehicle fuel is noted for its high energy requirements - for ITM’s solution to be both financially and environmentally viable it will need to generate a smaller carbon footprint and have lower running costs than the equivalent diesel vehicles.

If successful, this technology has the potential to provide an easily-depoloyed, national network of hydrogen filling stations - so the dream of zero emissions (from vehicles, if not power stations) could yet be a reality.

I wrote recently about the problems associated with biodiesel - but today’s Guardian has uncovered a trend that makes a mockery of any supposed environmental benefits of biofuel.

In two articles here and here the newspaper explains how unscrupulous biodiesel producers are shipping biodiesel to the US, blending it with 1% mineral diesel and then shipping it to the Europe, where it can be sold more cheaply than fuels blended in Europe. This wheeze is known as ’splash and dash’ and is thought to account for as much as 10% of fuel imports from the US to Europe.

The reason for this is the 11p per litre US government subsidy available on biodiesel that’s blended in the US. By shipping cheap biodiesel to the US and blending it there, agricultural trading companies can reap a massive windfall on a tanker full of biodiesel, which is then shipped back to Europe and sold below market prices, undercutting the more environmentally-responsible UK biodiesel producers - some of whom are now struggling to stay in business.

It’s inevitable that big businesses will try to exploit the subsidies and price differences available in a global marketplace (a technique known as arbitrage), but you’d think that the UK government might be interested in stopping this.

Consider: the RTFO scheme becomes a legal requirement this month - fuel suppliers are required to include 2.5% biodiesel in all of the forecourt petrol and diesel. At the same time, the government appears to be completely unconcerned about where all this biodiesel is coming from - and at what environmental cost.

Ship it twice across the Atlantic for a subsidy dodge and threaten to put responsible UK biodiesel producers out of business - no problems.

Chop down a few thousand acres of rainforest in Brazil to grow biofuel crops - nevermind.

It doesn’t seem like joined-up government, does it?

Fancy a fuel that only emits water and is abundantly available in nature?

How about one that can be used both to power internal combustion engines and to generate electricity - just by combining it with oxygen?

Hydrogen offers the potential to be the fuel that will solve our carbon emission problems - if we can get it right.

The situation at the moment is that it works well in vehicles, but:

1. There’s pretty much no distribution network in any country
2. The process of making hydrogen gas currently generates CO2 and uses a lot of energy - defeating the purpose of having a zero emission fuel.
3. Hydrogen fuel cells are currently extremely expensive to produce and require precious (expensive) metals for their manufacture.

However, history teaches us that logistical and engineering problems like those above are often solvable - meaning that hydrogen could have real potential as a fuel of the future.

Not everyone agrees, however. Jamie Beevor, from the Energy Saving Trust, believes that future fuels are likely to be a combination of existing and emerging technologies - “there is unlikely to be a silver bullet.”

Beevor also thinks that it’s possible that “with battery and electric vehicle technology rapidly progressing, battery electric vehicles could steal a march on hydrogen.”

So the jury is still out on hydrogen. At least two major motor manufacturers - BMW and Honda - have invested heavily in developing hydrogen-fuelled vehicles that are now commercially available (just!).

Honda’s FCX Clarity uses hydrogen fuel cells to power and electric motor, while BMW’s Hydrogen 7 has a regular petrol engine that can run on hydrogen or petrol. It’s technically a hybrid, but that’s primarily because there are so few places where you can fill up with hydrogen.

I’d love to see hydrogen succeed - if only because it would be a boyhood science fiction concept come true - but I wouldn’t be surprised if electric power wins over most other types of fuel in coming years. It already is developing fast and offers the twin advantages of mature , global distribution networks and centralised generation.

On the 1st April, 2008, the addition 2.5% of biodiesel to petrol and diesel becomes UK law.

Under the terms of the Renewable Transport Fuels Obligation (RTFO), fuel suppliers have to be able to prove that 2.5% of the fuel they sell is from ‘renewable’ sources - which means biofuels.

In 2010, this obligation will rise to 5% and it is scheduled to rise to 10% by 2020.

So what’s the problem?

Well, as I’ve hinted at before, the problem with biofuels is that there is growing evidence that they result in an increase in our carbon footprint - not a decrease. And it’s not just me. This week, two leading UK scientists (both current or former government scientists) have warned that there is growing evidence that the production of biofuels is creating serious problems.

The two scientists concerned are Professor Robert Watson, the chief scientific adviser to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and Sir David King, the former chief scientific officer to the government.

Discussing the new biofuel policy in an interview on BBC Radio 4 this week, Watson said that “It would obviously be insane if we had a policy to try and reduce greenhouse gas emissions through the use of biofuels that’s actually leading to an increase in the greenhouse gases from biofuels.”

King backed Watson’s comments, saying that “What is absolutely desperately needed within government are people of integrity who will state what the science advice is under whatever political pressure or circumstances” and suggesting that policy decisions are delayed until the results of a biofuels review commissioned by the government are published.

Watson’s concerns are twofold:

1. Different types of biofuel have considerably different carbon footprints. We need to differentiate between them.
2. The global commercial appetite for biofuels means that areas of rainforest are being cleared to grow commercial crops and agricultural land formerly used for food production is being switched over to fuel crop production.

The combination of these two factors means that in many cases biofuels may be contributing to an increase in our carbon footprint when compared to using oil-based fuels - not a decrease.

For example, deforestation in countries such as Brazil and Indonesia is increasing to make way for lucrative biofuel crops. This is resulting in a devastating loss of natural habitat and an 17-420 times increase in carbon emissions compared to the savings from not using fossil fuels, according to a new study published in the leading US journal Science.

Biofuel production is also widely accepted to have played a role in pushing up food prices over the last year, especially as a result of US government policy favouring production of bioethanol-type fuels.

It all adds up to a big question mark? Can biofuels help reduce carbon emissions? Is the environmental cost of salving our oil-drenched consciences with biofuel too high to pay?

The environmental benefits of hybrids may be widely accepted - lower emissions - but for commercial operators to adopt them, the operating costs will also have to be competitive.

Are they?

Hybrid vans and trucks are too thin on the ground for there to be any meaningful data about comparitive operating costs, but hybrid cars - particularly in the US - have been around for a while now.

In a recent article, CNN Money calculated the payback time for some popular hybrids - how long before the extra cost of the hybrid pays for itself in fuel savings?

The results made interesting reading. Based on driving 15,000 mile a year - much less than most commercial operators - the Toyota Prius should put you into profit after 4.2 years - not unreasonable. The worst result came from the Lexus LS600h - it would take a full 3,771 years before you actually moved into profit when compared to the regular LS460 model. But let’s be honest - anyone who buys a car with a 5 litre engine clearly isn’t an environmental fanatic (or poor…).

These figures are based on US fuel prices, however.

For UK drivers, these savings should be much more impressive - given that our fuel costs are about 2.5 times those of US drivers. Assuming we pay roughly the same prices for our hybrid vehicles as US residents, UK hybrid operators should be able to save a lot more money on fuel bills than their American counterparts.

In the real world, we probably pay a little more for our vehicles, but the savings should be significant all the same, don’t you think?

Recent months have seen a number of UK companies putting all-electric vans and 7.5t trucks into operation on urban duties.

The most popular choice at present seems to be the Smith Electric Vehicles Edison - a Ford Transit converted to all-electric operation. The Edison provides an impressive 150 miles range and maintains a 1,500kg payload with a gross vehicle weight of under 3.5t - making it exempt from the London Congestion Charge.

The Edison has a restricted top speed of 50mph - presumably to avoid the batteries being drained too quickly by excessive speed - which should be more than adequate for any urban deliveries.

Customers so far include A Plant - a London-based plant hire firm, as well as household names like Sainsbury Online, TNT Express and Scottish & Southern Energy, who is adding the Edison to its 6,000 strong commercial vehicle fleet.

An alternative electric-powered option has also been produced by UK company Modec, who have developed an all-new electric van design providing a payload of up to 2,000kg. The Modec van has already been adopted by equipment hire firm Speedy Hire for London use - and it seems certain that other companies with intensive urban operations will follow suit.

I can’t see many of these all-electric vans making their way into rental fleets; their limited range and speed mean that they are only really suitable for dedicated urban use at present. However, the rapidly-growing popularity of electric power just goes to support the case for hybrid power - surely the best of both worlds?

Update: Hot on the heels of this post comes a report from the OECD, no less, entitled “Biofuels: Could the Cure Be Worse Than the Disease?”

I hate to say I told you so… (Full details here)

–

It’s time for another prediction about the future of light commercial vehicles (vans to you and me):

Hybrids will be big for the next 10-20 years - and they deserve to be much bigger than biofuels.

Hybrid-powered vehicles, in case you haven’t come across them yet, utilise both a diesel or petrol engine and an electric motor.

At low speeds, the electric motor is driven by some beefy batteries and the main engine is off - meaning zero emissions and zero fuel consumption.

Once speeds rise, the diesel or petrol engine automatically kicks in and starts providing extra power - for out-of-town driving speeds. The batteries for the electric motor also get charged by the main engine while it’s running.

So that’s hybrids - back to my predictions…

Hybrid setups provide two massive advantages:

• A considerable reduction in urban emissions - where the electric setup is most at home
• A considerable improvement in fuel consumption - urban and stop/start driving (think motorway queues) gives very poor fuel consumption

Hybrid drivetrains are really starting to take off commercially now - both in the USA and in Europe. They are politically acceptable, increasingly technologically practical and seem to scale quite well, too.

Hybrids have always been more expensive than non-hybrid setups, but that cost differential is gradually being eroded, too.

So what’s this got to do with commercial vehicles?

As well as well-known hybrid cars like the Toyota Prius, which are already in commercial production, commercial vehicle manufacturers are increasingly experimenting with and trialling hybrid drivetrains for their larger, more fuel-hungry vehicles.

I firmly believe that in the short-medium term, hybrids will triumph over most of the alternative fuels that are currently being hyped up - especially biofuels.

Biofuels - (e.g. biodiesel) seem to me to be a poor compromise. They seem to cause as many problems as they might solve.

They drive farmers to start farming for fuel production instead of food (driving food prices up). They will also inevitably cause less-developed countries to sacrifice even larger swathes of jungle and much-needed fertile farming land to start producing cheap oil for fuel use*.

Simple economics make these consequences inevitable.

On top of that, biofuels don’t address the consumption issue - a diesel vehicle’s fuel consumption doesn’t change just because it’s using biodiesel.

To me, one of our targets should be to do more with less.

Hybrid’s have the advantage of enabling us to do exactly that - and of making the most of existing technology, fuel supply chains and infrastructures. I’m convinced that hybrids will be one of the main bridging technologies that sees us through until the next revolution occurs - be it fuel cells or something else.

What do you think?

(*For example, see “The western appetite for biofuels is causing starvation in the poor world”- The Guardian, 6th November 2007.)