Start me up: Opportunity charging or fast charging?
Both methods are designed to get DC equipment up and running faster—and keep it running longer—than with conventional charging. So which is best for your operation?
Victoria Kickham started her career as a newspaper reporter in the Boston area before moving into B2B journalism. She has covered manufacturing, distribution and supply chain issues for a variety of publications in the industrial and electronics sectors, and now writes about everything from forklift batteries to omnichannel business trends for DC Velocity.
Demand for longer-running lift trucks has given rise to opportunity charging and fast charging of batteries, both of which are aimed at expediting the charging process, reducing downtime, and freeing up space for other activities when compared with conventional charging. The ultimate goal? Getting warehouse and DC equipment started up even faster and running longer throughout the day to increase productivity.
While interest in both methods is creating industry buzz, it's also driving the need for increased education on the part of battery and charger manufacturers and their dealers. "It's common for customers using conventional charging to want to go to opportunity or fast charging, but they don't know if it's a good fit," says Jeff Harrison, business manager for Troy, Ohio-based charger manufacturer Ametek-Prestolite Power. As a result, suppliers say they're spending considerable time going over the what, why, and how of opportunity charging and fast charging with customers.
So what do these terms mean and how do the various methods stack up? What follows is a look at the key differences between conventional charging, opportunity charging, and fast charging and what may be right for your operation.
SPEEDING UP THE PROCESS
In a nutshell, opportunity and fast charging speed up the battery charging process. Along the way, they also help eliminate some of the labor and maintenance associated with conventional charging.
For most of battery history, conventional charging was the only way to charge a lead-acid lift truck battery. Simply put, with conventional charging, a facility has one or more batteries that are "changed out" when they are drained of power—that is, they are removed from the lift truck and connected to a charging system. The batteries are charged for eight hours, cooled for eight hours, and then put back into use. The process requires a designated battery space where charging and other maintenance activities are performed. Depending on the operation, the process could take up considerable real estate inside a warehouse or DC—not to mention the time and effort needed for the change-out process, and the need for multiple batteries for heavy-use and/or multiple-shift operations.
"That was the traditional way we did it up until 15 years ago," Harrison explains. "Then, some smart people said, 'Let's recharge faster so we don't have to take [the battery] out of the truck.'"
The result was opportunity charging, which is done throughout the workday when the lift truck is not in use—during lunchtime and other short breaks, for example. With opportunity charging, the battery remains in the lift truck and is plugged into a charger; larger facilities often have banks of charging stations for this purpose. Maintenance is reduced—no more changing, charging, and cooling of multiple batteries throughout the day. Instead, maintenance is performed weekly and monthly, including a regular equalize charge.
But the story doesn't end there. "Then, [researchers] said, 'Let's increase the rate so we can charge it even faster," Harrison says. "And now we have fast charging."
Like opportunity charging, fast charging is done throughout the day, without removing the battery from the lift truck. The key difference between the two methods is the start rate when charging the battery; start rate refers to the amount of current you're putting back into the battery at the start of the charge. As Harrison explains, charging happens on a curve, with the most current going in at the start before tapering off and ending at about a 5-percent rate. Speeding up the charging process happens at the beginning of that cycle. Quite simply, fast charging utilizes a faster start rate, further accelerating the charging process so that you get even more use out of your equipment per shift.
As an example, consider a 1,000 amp-hour battery. The start rate for conventional charging is about 20 percent, meaning that you're putting 200 DC amps back into that battery at the start of the charge. The start rate for opportunity charging is about 25 percent, meaning that you're putting 250 DC amps back into the battery at the start. The start rate for fast-charging applications is 35 percent or more, Harrison says.
Speeding up the charging process via opportunity charging and fast charging allows the lift truck to be used more continuously throughout a shift and for multiple shifts, often allowing facilities to reduce both the number of batteries and the amount of equipment they need. Thus, the cost savings add up: in lower capital expenditures, higher productivity, and lower maintenance costs.
BALANCING THE RISKS
Although the pros of opportunity and fast-charging methods are pretty clear—cost savings, higher productivity, and safety and maintenance improvements—experts caution that the methods are not for everyone. As Mike Hagen, vice president of sales and marketing for Menomonee Falls, Wis.-based battery and charger maker Storage Battery Systems LLC, explains, opportunity charging simply means that you're charging the battery more often and using higher charge currents to keep your equipment up and running. This can be ideal for operations running multiple shifts, as it allows them to save the time spent changing out, charging, and cooling their batteries daily.
Likewise, fast charging may be ideal in situations with heavy equipment use—for example, an automotive plant running six days a week and looking to reduce liability concerns associated with employees frequently changing out large, heavy batteries; free up valuable floor space previously needed for battery changing rooms; and reduce labor costs by eliminating time lost changing batteries.
But there is one big "con" with both methods, and it can outweigh the benefits if the conditions aren't right: reduced battery life.
Think of your battery as a car that will run a certain number of miles before it wears out. The faster you put those miles on, the sooner you will need to replace it.
"Batteries still have a finite [amount of use]," Harrison explains. "Opportunity charging and fast charging don't change that."
In fact, they can accelerate the process by exposing the battery to more heat, which can wear it down faster.
"You still get the same amount of work out of the battery, you're just getting through the life of the battery faster because you are using it more," Harrison explains, adding that proper care and monitoring is crucial to getting peak performance out of any lead-acid battery, regardless of the charging method. "That's taking a while for end users to grasp. Instead of getting five to seven years out of [a battery], you may get a year less."
Hagen adds that while both opportunity charging and fast charging shorten the life of the battery, fast charging is the quickest way to wear the battery out.
"You're going to have to change out the battery sooner by fast charging or by opportunity charging—but you'll have to replace the battery even sooner with fast charging," he says, adding that fast charging equates to overcharging the battery, which hastens its ultimate demise. "The benefits of fast and opportunity charging are getting amp hours back into the battery throughout the day versus getting a full depth of discharge and recharging fully. The negative is ... that it's just not good for the battery."
But again, the risk makes sense in certain situations—especially when balancing the cost of reduced battery life with investing in multiple batteries and equipment up front. Smaller operations running one shift are unlikely to see the same productivity gains from either opportunity or fast charging that their larger counterparts running multiple shifts will—especially if they're using equipment less or for lighter-duty tasks. Such operations may end up shortening battery life unnecessarily, Hagen says.
It's worth noting that fast charging makes up a small portion of the battery and charger market today. Harrison estimates that fast chargers represent less than 10 percent of the market compared with conventional and opportunity-charging systems. Opportunity charging is far more widespread, Hagen and Harrison agree.
KNOW YOUR NEEDS
Weighing the pros and cons of conventional charging, opportunity charging, and fast charging is no easy task. That's why Harrison, Hagen, and others recommend that customers begin with a "power study" of their facility's equipment and environment to determine the best option. Such studies are usually conducted by a battery/charger dealer and utilize monitoring equipment placed on all batteries in use. Using sensors and software, the monitoring system tracks conditions such as amp-hour usage and idle time. The dealer also considers how the equipment is used and the environmental factors at play—such as temperature and humidity—as well as utility costs and related issues.
Brian Faust, general manager for Reading, Pa.-based battery, charger, and accessories maker Douglas Battery, says such studies can make or break a company's charging optimization initiative. Douglas Battery recommends running a power study for two weeks, although 30 days is preferable if time allows, to establish the best charging method and equipment required.
"There is no particular market segment best suited to fast charging or opportunity charging. It all depends on a particular customer's demand out of their equipment," he explains. "And the power study is the key to determining which of the three [methods] is quoted. Not doing one and just selling a customer a program can mean that they don't get the results they want, or that they spend too much or too little ...
"You have to be able to do your due diligence. If you're not doing power studies, you're not doing your customer justice."
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."