Mark Solomon joined DC VELOCITY as senior editor in August 2008, and was promoted to his current position on January 1, 2015. He has spent more than 30 years in the transportation, logistics and supply chain management fields as a journalist and public relations professional. From 1989 to 1994, he worked in Washington as a reporter for the Journal of Commerce, covering the aviation and trucking industries, the Department of Transportation, Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court. Prior to that, he worked for Traffic World for seven years in a similar role. From 1994 to 2008, Mr. Solomon ran Media-Based Solutions, a public relations firm based in Atlanta. He graduated in 1978 with a B.A. in journalism from The American University in Washington, D.C.
In the process-driven world of material handling, where new ideas are often refinements of innovations that came before, few events qualify as "game-changers." But at a facility in Joliet, Ill., 40 miles southwest of Chicago, something is happening that just might measure up to the billing.
There, Central Grocers Inc., a food supplier co-operative serving Chicago and parts of Indiana, will be operating what is believed to be the nation's first distribution center whose entire lift-truck fleet—220 vehicles—is powered by hydrogen fuel cell technology. As of April 5, 140 order-picking trucks were running on fuel cells. The remaining 80 trucks will transition later this year or in early 2010. The company expects to save about $750,000 over five years, largely through productivity enhancements, says John Coari, vice president of operations for Central Grocers (see "green grocer," DC VELOCITY, May 2009, for more on Central Grocers' fuel cell program).
Yet as Central Grocers moves aggressively into the world of alternative energy, it is also hedging its bets. It does not own the fuel cells; instead, it leases the cells, the equipment, and maintenance services from Plug Power Inc., one of a handful of fuel cell manufacturers. It pays Plug Power a usage fee for the hydrogen. Plug Power, not Central Grocers, arranges for the shipping of hydrogen to the Central Grocers site. Central Grocers has an exit clause in its contract should the technology fail to meet its expectations. And since it already owns batteries and chargers, it can fall back on the old-fangled power source if need be.
The project, whose progress is being closely watched by the material handling/supply chain world, epitomizes the industry's current perception of fuel cell technology: The potential is there, but so is the reality of significant upfront and ongoing expenses. For warehouse operators with relatively small lift-truck fleets and which run mostly single shifts, fuel cells may not even be worth considering.
Then there is the natural reluctance to be perceived as a guinea pig. "No one wants to be the first penguin in the water," says Bill Ryan, vice president and general manager of the material handling division of LiftOne, a multiline lift-truck distributor.
Power plays
For one thing, fuel cells cost more to purchase than batteries. It costs about $10,000 to buy one fuel cell to power a lift truck. The cost of the fuel cell power pack, which includes the cell "stack," storage capabilities, and other necessary but expensive equipment and systems, is between $32,000 and $41,000 per truck, though the cost should come down if production ramps up.
A standard lift-truck battery, by contrast, costs between $3,000 and $4,000. Because the average battery life is about eight hours, a lift truck that works more than a single shift will likely require multiple batteries. For example, a vehicle that works three shifts round the clock will need three batteries to ensure one is at the ready while the others are recharging.
It is also more costly to power a truck with fuel cells than with electricity used in batteries. Blake Dickinson, technology manager for AeroVironment Inc., a Monrovia, Calif.-based company that makes equipment to quickly recharge lift-truck batteries, estimates a fuel cell-powered lift truck uses three times more energy than a truck using electricity.
From there, however, the road divides. Proponents of fuel cell technology maintain that high-volume users, broadly defined as those operating 50 or more trucks in two or three shifts in a 24/7 environment, will significantly reduce labor costs and increase productivity by eliminating the need to swap out batteries for washing and recharging. It takes, on average, 10 minutes to change a battery, while it takes about two to four minutes to fill a cell with hydrogen, according to data from The Raymond Corp., a leading lift-truck manufacturer. Some say the battery swap-out time can be as long as 30 minutes.
Users will also free up warehouse space previously reserved for battery storage and changing. They can also expect to achieve superior run times with their trucks because unlike batteries, whose voltage drops toward the end of a shift, fuel cells don't lose power until the cell is empty, fuel cell advocates contend.
Ryan says the hourly unit cost of maintaining a typical forklift battery is about $1, compared to 53 cents per hour for maintaining a fuel cell. He estimates that a warehouse or distribution center operator fitting the high-volume profile can save 15 percent a year by using fuel cells. This doesn't include the intangible environmental benefits that come from using a "clean" energy source, whose only by-products are water and heat, Ryan says.
According to an analysis by Raymond, a company operating a large distribution center with 125 trucks running two shifts will see an improvement of $3.2 million in its net present value through labor savings, reduced downtime, and increased productivity. That offsets the estimated initial $1.3 million investment in outfitting the trucks with fuel cell packs and developing storage and dispensing systems for the hydrogen, according to Steven Medwin, manager of systems and advanced engineering, and the official who prepared the analysis. Analyses from other companies in the fuel cell and lift-truck sectors peg the payoff time for fuel cell investment at two to three years, depending on fleet size and characteristics.
Hydrogen supply hurdles
But there are roadblocks. Opponents cite the cost of the fuel cell packs and the hydrogen itself, as well as the infrastructure required for storage and dispensing. Then there is the expense of building either an in-house hydrogen generation system or having the gas trucked in by industrial vendors. Relying on vendor shipping networks—the most common means today of delivering hydrogen to distribution centers—carries its own hefty price tag, especially if the gas quantities must support the needs of larger fleets and if the distance between the vendor's location and the distribution center is more than 100 miles.
Praxair Inc., one of the largest suppliers of hydrogen, does not have a presence in the lift-truck market, mostly because so few lift trucks use fuel cells. Yet Tom Harrison, hydrogen product manager for Praxair, predicts strong future demand for fuel cell technology, especially among the large manufacturers and retailers that run warehouses and DCs. "The market size right now doesn't appear to be a stumbling block," Harrison says.
Ryan says the cost of transportation and distribution is the main barrier to aggressive adoption of fuel cell technology. "If we had hydrogen generation centers around every corner, there would be a rush to the door for fuel cells, regardless of the other issues," he says.
Dickinson of AeroVironment says he "would question the value of fuel cells even for heavy-duty users." He says that the fast-charge battery process is far more cost-effective than using fuel cells, and that the charging can be completed on workers' lunch breaks or other off-duty periods so as not to drive up labor costs and impact productivity.
The only scenario where battery charging makes less sense than fuel cells, he says, is in distribution centers whose trucks operate with virtually no downtime and don't even have an opportunity for battery recharging.
Charging ahead
Still, companies who see the long-term promise in fuel cells are forging ahead. Billerica, Mass.-based Nuvera Fuel Cells Inc., one of the nation's few fuel cell manufacturers, has developed an onsite outdoor hydrogen generator for customers that use more than 25 kilograms (55 pounds) a day. The unit uses a steam-reformation process to generate hydrogen for $4 a kilogram (2.2 pounds), which the company says is the most cost-effective solution.
In October, lift-truck maker Crown Equipment Corp. of New Bremen, Ohio, launched a project to upgrade 20 of its trucks at the Pentagon's Defense Distribution Depot in Warner Robins, Ga., with fuel cell packs. The 20 trucks are "counterbalanced," meaning they have sufficient ballast to offset the lighter weight of fuel cells relative to batteries, thus avoiding the need to reduce the amount of weight the trucks handle.
Toyota Industries Corp. and Toyota Motor Corp. continue to test a prototype in Japan of an integrated, ergonomically advanced fuel-cell lift truck that was introduced at ProMat 2007 in Chicago. There is no set launch date, according to Cesar Jimenez, electric product planning & product marketing manager for Toyota Material Handling, U.S.A., Inc.
In April 2008, Raymond launched a joint venture with fuel-cell maker Ballard Power Systems to research designs for integrated fuel-cell trucks with Ballard's technology to power the vehicles. Medwin of Raymond would not comment on the project's status other than to say that it is moving forward.
Efforts to advance fuel-cell technology have received two important boosts from Washington. The bank bailout legislation signed by President Bush last October included an eight-year extension of a tax credit equal to 30 percent of a fuel cell's unit price or $3,000 per kilowatt hour of use, whichever is less. The $787 billion economic stimulus plan signed by President Obama in mid-February authorized until Jan. 1, 2011, a 30-percent tax credit, up to $200,000, for investment in hydrogen refueling systems. The prior ceiling had been $30,000.
The expansion of the tax credit for refueling systems should dramatically shorten the time needed to achieve a return on the initial investment, says Russ Keller, senior director of the alternative energy program at the South Carolina Research Authority, a Charleston-based organization that provides research and development support for government and academia. "The challenge [to obtaining a return on investment] is the fueling infrastructure," Keller says. The sweeteners in the stimulus law will "make a nice dent in reducing the ROI," he adds.
For all the promise, however, the jury remains out on fuel cells. Batteries and internal combustion engines rule the lift-truck world, and they are not expected to disappear. Jimenez of Toyota says there is room for both power sources to co-exist, with the choice of battery or fuel-cell power depending on the demands placed on the lift trucks. Companies that require their trucks to be used continuously will find fuel cells more practical and economical, while those that use their trucks less frequently and have more downtime will continue to opt for battery power, he says.
Those placing their bets with fuel cells say time and trends are on their side. When asked at what point the material handling industry can reasonably expect fuel cells to be a viable alternative, Erik Jensen, manager of new technology, research, and development at Crown, replied, "That day is today."
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."