David Maloney has been a journalist for more than 35 years and is currently the group editorial director for DC Velocity and Supply Chain Quarterly magazines. In this role, he is responsible for the editorial content of both brands of Agile Business Media. Dave joined DC Velocity in April of 2004. Prior to that, he was a senior editor for Modern Materials Handling magazine. Dave also has extensive experience as a broadcast journalist. Before writing for supply chain publications, he was a journalist, television producer and director in Pittsburgh. Dave combines a background of reporting on logistics with his video production experience to bring new opportunities to DC Velocity readers, including web videos highlighting top distribution and logistics facilities, webcasts and other cross-media projects. He continues to live and work in the Pittsburgh area.
When it's time to charge up their forklifts at the end of a shift, most drivers either line up at a battery-changing room or head for a fastcharging station. But not the drivers at East Penn Manufacturing Co.'s Topton, Pa., distribution facility. There, lift-truck operators maneuver their vehicles into a small drive-in refueling room attached to the building. Once inside, the driver dismounts and closes the door. He removes a hose from a wallmounted dispenser, inserts it into the tank onboard the lift truck, and turns a dial on the dispenser. In less than one minute, the tank is filled and the truck is ready for another full shift, using power supplied by hydrogen fuel cells.
While the rest of the world awaits the day when hydrogen-powered cars speed silently along the nation's highways, a revolution is already quietly under way in North America's DCs. For several years now, fuel cell-powered lift trucks have been gliding around manufacturing and distribution facilities run by some of the world's best-known companies. Wal-Mart has conducted fuel cell forklift trials, as have Raymond Corp. and East Penn. At least one tester, GM Canada, is about to embark on its second pilot.
Industrial edge
Although they're still considered an experimental technology, hydrogen fuel cells are not really new. "It's a technology that's been around since 1839," says Bruce Townson, director of business development for Hydrogenics, a Canadian-based developer of fuel cells. "Not much was done with the technology, however, until the Apollo space missions. Then in the late 1980s and early 1990s, developers began looking at it for powering vehicles."
At first, developers set their sights on the markets with the biggest potential payoff: cars and trucks. But as difficulties emerged with establishing a fueling-station infrastructure, many shifted their attention to industrial markets. Compared to the automobile market, the industrial truck sector has at least one overwhelming advantage: It doesn't require a network of public fueling stations. Lift trucks typically operate within the confines of a DC, which enables easy and centralized refueling.
harnessing hydrogen's power
How do you use hydrogen to power a lift truck? One way is to place a fuel cell power pack where a battery would normally fit and connect it to the truck using the same terminals a battery would use. The power pack consists of a tank to store the hydrogen once it's dispensed into the vehicle, a stack of fuel cells to create electricity, and a power storage device, such as a battery. The fuel tank holds about 1.8 kilograms of hydrogen, which is enough to power the truck throughout a shift.
The fuel cell stack consists of layered combinations of bipolar plates and membrane electrode assemblies coated with a catalyst such as platinum. The stacks allow hydrogen to combine with oxygen from the air to create a chemical reaction, splitting the electrons and protons of the hydrogen. In simple terms, the result of the chemical reaction is an approximately 50/50 release of energy and heat. The energy is converted to electricity to power the vehicle. Additional energy is stored in a small battery that provides power when needed for peak loads and captures regenerative power from braking. The heat is dispersed using a cooling fan.
A single cell can only produce about 0.7 volts of electricity, which means it takes a significant number of cells stacked end to end (as with flashlight batteries) to power a conventional 36- or 48-volt lift truck. The size of the stack varies according to the truck's voltage requirements.
Developers have found a receptive audience among lift-truck users. Part of the appeal, of course, is fuel cells' reputation for cleanliness (the only byproducts are water and heat). But fuel cells also hold other attractions for lift-truck users—consistent power delivery, shorter fueling times, and reduced maintenance, among them.
East Penn was one of the companies eager to start testing the technology. It might seem odd that East Penn, which manufactures the well-known Deka brand battery along with a variety of battery accessories, would be among those in the forefront of fuel cell testing. But the company doesn't view hydrogen as a threat to its business. "We want customers to be able to pick the right solution out of our bag," says Jim Rubright, East Penn's vice president of motive power sales. "We don't see hydrogen replacing battery use in facilities as much as we see it complementing them."
East Penn began experimenting with hydrogen about a year ago. In conjunction with its partner, Nuvera, a Cambridge, Mass.-based fuel cell manufacturer, the company outfitted 10 lift trucks at the Topton facility with hydrogen fuel cells. The company also installed a storage tank and compressor outside the building, and built a small drive-in refueling room attached to a door of the DC to house the dispenser unit. The decision to locate the dispenser in a separate room that's merely attached to the main building allowed East Penn to get the system up and running quickly and meet fire code requirements.
Rubright says East Penn's experiments have yielded impressive results. To begin with, the fuel cells have led to significant reductions in refueling times. Replacing the hydrogen takes less than a minute, while the entire process of moving into and out of the dispensing area takes less than five minutes. The DC is saving on space as well. "The space needed for the actual dispensing unit is about 2 percent of that required for a changing room," he reports.
On top of that, there are the benefits of consistent power delivery, which drivers consider a big plus. "Our operators have also been pleased, as they do not experience the voltage lag that batteries have when they begin to wear down," says Rubright.
Take two!
Testers at GM Canada's plant in Oshawa, Ontario, have reported similar results. GM Canada began experimenting with hydrogen fuel cells in 2004, when it placed hydrogen units into two lift trucks at the Oshawa plant, where Chevrolets, Buicks, and Pontiacs are assembled. Workers at the facility immediately noticed that with fuel cells, there was no drop-off in power, reports Brad Cochrane, GM Canada's facilities area manager. "It really takes variation out of the system. We achieved consistent productivity throughout the workday."
The success of that test has led GM to conduct an even larger trial, which is set to begin during the third quarter of this year. In the upcoming test, which will also be conducted at the Oshawa plant, GM will use hydrogen fuel cells from Hydrogenics to power 19 Hyster counterbalanced lift trucks that are used to deliver incoming parts to assembly stations. While GM produced and stored the hydrogen needed for its first trial on site, company officials say GM has yet to work out the details for the testing's second phase.
GM hopes to use what it learns from the upcoming trial in its ongoing research into ways to use hydrogen to power the passenger cars produced at the plant. "In general, GM as a company wants to explore all of the green technologies available," says Cochrane. "This project is just one piece of the knowledge base that will be needed for hydrogen fuel cells to break through as a mainstream energy technology."
Labor-saving device?
Certainly, hydrogen's reputation as a "green" alternative will be one of its biggest selling points. Hydrogen burns much cleaner than internal combustion systems, making it an attractive option for companies seeking to cultivate an ecofriendly image.
But there's no denying that the other kind of green—the greenbacks companies invest in their vehicles—will play a role in their decisions as well. "There are environmental benefits to hydrogen fuel cells, but it clearly will come down to what makes economic sense," notes Steve Medwin, manager of advanced research for lift-truck manufacturer Raymond Corp.
When it comes to hydrogen, cost can be a showstopper. Although the cost of outfitting a vehicle with a fuel cell power pack is about half what it was two years ago, it still comes to about $40,000 per truck, or about 10 times the price of a conventional lead acid battery. On top of that, there's the expense of equipping a building with a hydrogen storage tank, compressor, and dispensing system, which together total another $100,000 or more.
Although the technology may never be affordable for one- and two-shift operations, fuel-cell proponents argue that high-volume facilities—like the Oshawa plant, which operates 24 hours a day, five days a week—can expect to save money. "The busier the warehouse, the more likely the economic profile for hydrogen fits," says Rubright of East Penn."Hydrogen equipment is not cheaper, but the benefits come in productivity and saving labor."
Medwin of Raymond agrees. "The way you justify hydrogen is on productivity," he says.Medwin explains that since a hydrogen cell can be refueled in less than five minutes, it saves a great deal of time compared to battery changing. "Twenty minutes per shift per vehicle to exchange a battery is a lot of lost productivity," he says. "They are not moving goods while they are changing batteries."
Do the math
But others say the economics just aren't there right now. "Any customer looking to improve operations and productivity needs to do the math," cautions Steven Gitlin, director of marketing strategy for AeroVironment, the maker of PosiCharge battery charging systems and other power technologies. "Given the nature of the costs and alternatives available, there are more beneficial solutions already out there."
Gitlin explains that aside from the costs of the fuel cell packages and infrastructure, there are basic limitations on how inexpensively hydrogen fuel can be created and a system operated. When you add up all the expenses, it currently costs four to five times more to operate a hydrogen system in a vehicle than it does to recharge lead acid batteries in the same vehicle, he says. Eventually, that may drop to about half, but the costs will still be considerable, he adds. "Your hydrogen bill will still be about 2.5 times more than your electric bill. Two-and-a-half times is just a fundamental limitation of fuel cells based on how practical you can make those conversions."
"It will be hard to switch from what works today," adds Cesar Jiminez of Toyota Lift Trucks. "It is definitely difficult to justify the investment costs. Just the infrastructure costs alone are astronomical."
Yet those costs haven't stopped Toyota—or Raymond, for that matter—from developing experimental trucks using hydrogen. In fact, both foresee a day when lift trucks will be built around a hydrogen power system, in contrast to the current hybrid system, which simply replaces a battery with a hydrogen fuel pack.
Many observers also believe that costs will drop as the technology advances and adoption becomes more widespread. Think of it this way, says East Penn's Rubright: "What did you pay for your last VCR as opposed to your first?"
hydrogen inside!
Hydrogen may be the most common element in the universe, but fuel cell users still need to find a way to "harvest" that hydrogen and store it.
Right now, companies have two choices for obtaining hydrogen: They can contract with a commercial supplier or they can manufacture their own on site. For most companies, the decision is dictated by economics—the local cost of the natural gas and/or electricity required to manufacture hydrogen vs. the cost of having it delivered from the nearest production plant. Hydrogen typically runs about $10 to $12 per kilogram, though some high-volume purchasers may be able to find hydrogen for as little as $5 per kilogram.
Commercial suppliers deliver hydrogen in one of two ways. They either bring it in via tanker truck and transfer it to an on-site storage tank, or they deliver a tube trailer consisting of several long tubes filled with hydrogen in gaseous form. In the latter case, the driver simply unhooks the tube trailer from the tractor and leaves it at the customer's site, where it can be connected directly to the facility's system. When the trailer is empty, the supplier delivers another full tube trailer and takes back the empty unit.
Companies that decide to make their own hydrogen will need conversion equipment that operates on either natural gas or electricity. The converter removes hydrogen from the air for processing in a gaseous form.
Whether it's made on site or delivered, the hydrogen must be compressed to 5,000 to 7,000 pounds per square inch before it can be used. The fuel passes through a compressor that assures that the gas can be dispensed into the tank properly while occupying as little cubic volume as possible once delivered to the vehicle.
Most facilities use a small storage tank to hold the compressed hydrogen. The dispensing station then draws the hydrogen directly from the tank. The dispensing station is normally located inside the facility and, similar to a gasoline pump, consists of a rectangular regulator box mounted to a wall. A hose protrudes from the box for dispensing the hydrogen gas into the vehicle. As a safety precaution, companies usually position hydrogen sensors in the dispensing area to monitor for leaks.
In many municipalities, fire and safety codes for hydrogen use and storage have yet to be written. Nonetheless, companies contemplating the use of hydrogen fuel are advised to check with their local authorities as early in the planning stages as possible.
Congestion on U.S. highways is costing the trucking industry big, according to research from the American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI), released today.
The group found that traffic congestion on U.S. highways added $108.8 billion in costs to the trucking industry in 2022, a record high. The information comes from ATRI’s Cost of Congestion study, which is part of the organization’s ongoing highway performance measurement research.
Total hours of congestion fell slightly compared to 2021 due to softening freight market conditions, but the cost of operating a truck increased at a much higher rate, according to the research. As a result, the overall cost of congestion increased by 15% year-over-year—a level equivalent to more than 430,000 commercial truck drivers sitting idle for one work year and an average cost of $7,588 for every registered combination truck.
The analysis also identified metropolitan delays and related impacts, showing that the top 10 most-congested states each experienced added costs of more than $8 billion. That list was led by Texas, at $9.17 billion in added costs; California, at $8.77 billion; and Florida, $8.44 billion. Rounding out the top 10 list were New York, Georgia, New Jersey, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, and Tennessee. Combined, the top 10 states account for more than half of the trucking industry’s congestion costs nationwide—52%, according to the research.
The metro areas with the highest congestion costs include New York City, $6.68 billion; Miami, $3.2 billion; and Chicago, $3.14 billion.
ATRI’s analysis also found that the trucking industry wasted more than 6.4 billion gallons of diesel fuel in 2022 due to congestion, resulting in additional fuel costs of $32.1 billion.
ATRI used a combination of data sources, including its truck GPS database and Operational Costs study benchmarks, to calculate the impacts of trucking delays on major U.S. roadways.
There’s a photo from 1971 that John Kent, professor of supply chain management at the University of Arkansas, likes to show. It’s of a shaggy-haired 18-year-old named Glenn Cowan grinning at three-time world table tennis champion Zhuang Zedong, while holding a silk tapestry Zhuang had just given him. Cowan was a member of the U.S. table tennis team who participated in the 1971 World Table Tennis Championships in Nagoya, Japan. Story has it that one morning, he overslept and missed his bus to the tournament and had to hitch a ride with the Chinese national team and met and connected with Zhuang.
Cowan and Zhuang’s interaction led to an invitation for the U.S. team to visit China. At the time, the two countries were just beginning to emerge from a 20-year period of decidedly frosty relations, strict travel bans, and trade restrictions. The highly publicized trip signaled a willingness on both sides to renew relations and launched the term “pingpong diplomacy.”
Kent, who is a senior fellow at the George H. W. Bush Foundation for U.S.-China Relations, believes the photograph is a good reminder that some 50-odd years ago, the economies of the United States and China were not as tightly interwoven as they are today. At the time, the Nixon administration was looking to form closer political and economic ties between the two countries in hopes of reducing chances of future conflict (and to weaken alliances among Communist countries).
The signals coming out of Washington and Beijing are now, of course, much different than they were in the early 1970s. Instead of advocating for better relations, political rhetoric focuses on the need for the U.S. to “decouple” from China. Both Republicans and Democrats have warned that the U.S. economy is too dependent on goods manufactured in China. They see this dependency as a threat to economic strength, American jobs, supply chain resiliency, and national security.
Supply chain professionals, however, know that extricating ourselves from our reliance on Chinese manufacturing is easier said than done. Many pundits push for a “China + 1” strategy, where companies diversify their manufacturing and sourcing options beyond China. But in reality, that “plus one” is often a Chinese company operating in a different country or a non-Chinese manufacturer that is still heavily dependent on material or subcomponents made in China.
This is the problem when supply chain decisions are made on a global scale without input from supply chain professionals. In an article in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Kent argues that, “The discussions on supply chains mainly take place between government officials who typically bring many other competing issues and agendas to the table. Corporate entities—the individuals and companies directly impacted by supply chains—tend to be under-represented in the conversation.”
Kent is a proponent of what he calls “supply chain diplomacy,” where experts from academia and industry from the U.S. and China work collaboratively to create better, more efficient global supply chains. Take, for example, the “Peace Beans” project that Kent is involved with. This project, jointly formed by Zhejiang University and the Bush China Foundation, proposes balancing supply chains by exporting soybeans from Arkansas to tofu producers in China’s Yunnan province, and, in return, importing coffee beans grown in Yunnan to coffee roasters in Arkansas. Kent believes the operation could even use the same transportation equipment.
The benefits of working collaboratively—instead of continuing to build friction in the supply chain through tariffs and adversarial relationships—are numerous, according to Kent and his colleagues. They believe it would be much better if the two major world economies worked together on issues like global inflation, climate change, and artificial intelligence.
And such relations could play a significant role in strengthening world peace, particularly in light of ongoing tensions over Taiwan. Because, as Kent writes, “The 19th-century idea that ‘When goods don’t cross borders, soldiers will’ is as true today as ever. Perhaps more so.”
Hyster-Yale Materials Handling today announced its plans to fulfill the domestic manufacturing requirements of the Build America, Buy America (BABA) Act for certain portions of its lineup of forklift trucks and container handling equipment.
That means the Greenville, North Carolina-based company now plans to expand its existing American manufacturing with a targeted set of high-capacity models, including electric options, that align with the needs of infrastructure projects subject to BABA requirements. The company’s plans include determining the optimal production location in the United States, strategically expanding sourcing agreements to meet local material requirements, and further developing electric power options for high-capacity equipment.
As a part of the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the BABA Act aims to increase the use of American-made materials in federally funded infrastructure projects across the U.S., Hyster-Yale says. It was enacted as part of a broader effort to boost domestic manufacturing and economic growth, and mandates that federal dollars allocated to infrastructure – such as roads, bridges, ports and public transit systems – must prioritize materials produced in the USA, including critical items like steel, iron and various construction materials.
Hyster-Yale’s footprint in the U.S. is spread across 10 locations, including three manufacturing facilities.
“Our leadership is fully invested in meeting the needs of businesses that require BABA-compliant material handling solutions,” Tony Salgado, Hyster-Yale’s chief operating officer, said in a release. “We are working to partner with our key domestic suppliers, as well as identifying how best to leverage our own American manufacturing footprint to deliver a competitive solution for our customers and stakeholders. But beyond mere compliance, and in line with the many areas of our business where we are evolving to better support our customers, our commitment remains steadfast. We are dedicated to delivering industry-leading standards in design, durability and performance — qualities that have become synonymous with our brands worldwide and that our customers have come to rely on and expect.”
In a separate move, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) also gave its approval for the state to advance its Heavy-Duty Omnibus Rule, which is crafted to significantly reduce smog-forming nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions from new heavy-duty, diesel-powered trucks.
Both rules are intended to deliver health benefits to California citizens affected by vehicle pollution, according to the environmental group Earthjustice. If the state gets federal approval for the final steps to become law, the rules mean that cars on the road in California will largely be zero-emissions a generation from now in the 2050s, accounting for the average vehicle lifespan of vehicles with internal combustion engine (ICE) power sold before that 2035 date.
“This might read like checking a bureaucratic box, but EPA’s approval is a critical step forward in protecting our lungs from pollution and our wallets from the expenses of combustion fuels,” Paul Cort, director of Earthjustice’s Right To Zero campaign, said in a release. “The gradual shift in car sales to zero-emissions models will cut smog and household costs while growing California’s clean energy workforce. Cutting truck pollution will help clear our skies of smog. EPA should now approve the remaining authorization requests from California to allow the state to clean its air and protect its residents.”
However, the truck drivers' industry group Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) pushed back against the federal decision allowing the Omnibus Low-NOx rule to advance. "The Omnibus Low-NOx waiver for California calls into question the policymaking process under the Biden administration's EPA. Purposefully injecting uncertainty into a $588 billion American industry is bad for our economy and makes no meaningful progress towards purported environmental goals," (OOIDA) President Todd Spencer said in a release. "EPA's credibility outside of radical environmental circles would have been better served by working with regulated industries rather than ramming through last-minute special interest favors. We look forward to working with the Trump administration's EPA in good faith towards achievable environmental outcomes.”
Editor's note:This article was revised on December 18 to add reaction from OOIDA.
A Canadian startup that provides AI-powered logistics solutions has gained $5.5 million in seed funding to support its concept of creating a digital platform for global trade, according to Toronto-based Starboard.
The round was led by Eclipse, with participation from previous backers Garuda Ventures and Everywhere Ventures. The firm says it will use its new backing to expand its engineering team in Toronto and accelerate its AI-driven product development to simplify supply chain complexities.
According to Starboard, the logistics industry is under immense pressure to adapt to the growing complexity of global trade, which has hit recent hurdles such as the strike at U.S. east and gulf coast ports. That situation calls for innovative solutions to streamline operations and reduce costs for operators.
As a potential solution, Starboard offers its flagship product, which it defines as an AI-based transportation management system (TMS) and rate management system that helps mid-sized freight forwarders operate more efficiently and win more business. More broadly, Starboard says it is building the virtual infrastructure for global trade, allowing freight companies to leverage AI and machine learning to optimize operations such as processing shipments in real time, reconciling invoices, and following up on payments.
"This investment is a pivotal step in our mission to unlock the power of AI for our customers," said Sumeet Trehan, Co-Founder and CEO of Starboard. "Global trade has long been plagued by inefficiencies that drive up costs and reduce competitiveness. Our platform is designed to empower SMB freight forwarders—the backbone of more than $20 trillion in global trade and $1 trillion in logistics spend—with the tools they need to thrive in this complex ecosystem."