Tesla Semi rival Nikola Motors recently revealed a rather ambitious goal for the future energy consumption of its hydrogen-electric trucks. In a post on its official Twitter page, Nikola announced that in ten years, the company would become the United States’ largest energy consumer.
Nikola pointed out that by 2028, its fleet of hydrogen-electric trucks will be supported by an estimated 820 refilling stations operating across the country. Considering the expected consumption of its long-haulers and estimates that each station will fill 160 trucks daily, each H2 station will likely consume 422 MWh of energy every day. At ~820 refilling stations, Nikola expects its fleet of hydrogen-electric trucks to consume a total of 349 GWh of energy per day.
Within 10 years,@nikolamotor will become the largest energy consumer in America. Estimated 820 stations going online by 2028. Each station fills 160 trucks daily- will consume 422 MWh of renewables (422 MWh X 828 stations = 349 GWh per day) pic.twitter.com/B8Ylovw46H
— Nikola Motor Company (@nikolamotor) October 1, 2018
The hydrogen-electric truck startup did clarify that it intends to exclusively utilize renewables for its fleet’s energy consumption. In a follow-up to its initial announcement, the company even noted that it primarily uses solar with wind and hydropower as backups for its operations. Nikola further noted that its energy sources are all renewable, with on-site generation and zero-emissions “from production to consumption.”
Ultimately, Nikola Motors’ recent Twitter announcement gives the company an ambitious target. That said, if the company ramps the construction of its network of H2 refilling stations, its 10-year timeline could prove to be more than enough.
Nikola Motors’ recent announcement about its energy consumption estimates stands as the latest bold declaration from the startup truckmaker. Earlier this year, Nikola issued another bold announcement, seemingly throwing shade at Tesla by stating that all reservations placed for the Nikola One and Nikola Two will be refunded. As an aside, the company further noted in its post that it doesn’t “use (customers’) money to operate (its) business.” Nikola also announced that companies who wish to reserve its future vehicles could do so for free. On May, the company did get a large order for its electric trucks from brewery giant Anheuser-Busch, which ordered 800 units of the hydrogen-electric trucks.
Nikola has since adopted a more unfriendly stance against Tesla. The company has filed a $2 billion lawsuit against the electric car maker alleging that the Tesla Semi violated its design patents for the Nikola One. The hydrogen-electric truck maker lists several aspects of the Tesla Semi that were allegedly copied from the One, including its wraparound windshield, mid-entry door, front fenders, and the electric truck’s aerodynamic body. Nikola further alleged that due to the similarity of the One and the Semi, its brand is at risk due to Tesla’s reputation.
“Tesla’s design has caused confusion among customers. The confusion has diverted sales from Nikola to Tesla. Further, any problems with the Tesla Semi will be attributed to the Nikola One, causing harm to the Nikola brand. For example, Tesla has had problems with its batteries starting fires and its autonomous features causing fatal accidents. Should these problems arise with the Tesla Semi, the market will attribute these problems to Nikola because of the similarities between the two vehicles.”
The US Patent Office granted Tesla its own design patents for the Semi back in August, though, despite the examiner from the agency using the Nikola One as one of the comparison points for the all-electric truck. If Nikola opts to pursue its case against Tesla, it would have to prove that the US Patent Examiner made a mistake — a feat that would be very challenging to accomplish.
Nikola is currently preparing for a three-day event in April 2019, which would involve the unveiling of the pre-production models of its hydrogen-electric trucks, as well as a 2.3-megawatt hydrogen fueling station that would serve as a model for the company’s upcoming network of refilling stations.
Top Rated Comments (view all)
Discuss: News
Log in with:
Or sign up with TESLARATI:
And then all the "practical" FC setups put the energy in a battery for load smoothing anyway.
H2 storage will never be close to the efficiency of Li-Ion storage, let alone be better.
So if we were in the position of having an overabundance of free, renewable energy, so much we hardly know what to do with it, and just need somewhere to store it for a while, maybe Hydrogen has a point for road transport. But, err, we really don't.
I guess it could conceivably make sense for air transport.
His grand claims are whopping silly.
1 ) Will people really think electric trucks are Hydrogen trucks? *(not unless they are stupid) = (perhaps Trevor Milton is depending on some people being stupid as his business plan).
2 ) Are trucks really green at a (max) 30% efficiency energy use? = No. Not even if the squandered power is wind and solar.
3 ) Will people buy Tesla trucks because they are styled like Nicola trucks? No. This is like pretending people are buying Ford Fiesta cars because they are styled to look a little like Tesla cars and might mix these up if Tesla keeps its existing styling.
I think I finally get it. They are saying that Nikola as a company will consume more energy than any other single company. So they say they will consume more than GM or Ford does to make cars and trucks. Does a company like PG&E consider themselves as a consumer of energy because they buy or produce electricity for a large part of California which they in turn sell?
Yes. That is pretty much what they're trying to claim. It's a very very big claim to make, and they're doing some major statistics gymnastics to justify it.
Firstly, you've got to assume that they they're going to build enough trucks to do all that refuelling. 160 trucks per day * 820 fuelling stations is 131,200 trucks. That's the minimum number of vehicles they'd need to have built inside the next decade in order to meet the claim. That doesn't sound like a lot, but it took Tesla more than a decade to get to their first hundred thousand cars. I can't see Nicolai beating that.
And building that many charging stations isn't going to be easy either. A hydrogen fuel station requires a lot of infrastructure. It's not like a Tesla supercharger that basically just requires an industrial electricity feed. Look how long it took Tesla to build the supercharger network to over 800 locations. Nicolai building 800 hydrogen stations is a much bigger task.
All of which means that in order to get anywhere close to the numbers they're claiming, they're going to need funding in the same order of magnitude as Tesla has had. That seems difficult.
And finally, it looks like they're counting it by calculating energy going into trucks from filling stations. Surely the energy usage should be counted against the vehicle operator rather than the fuelling station? But let's allow them to do it that way: So then then surely Exxon, BP, and friends will still be handily beating Nicolai by that metric in ten year's time. To say nothing of Tesla, who are going to beat Nicolai to market with their Semi and will be charging them via mega-chargers.
Nicolai may well have a viable product; we won't know until they build it. They may even be able to carve out a market for themselves in the trucking industry, if the product is good enough. But I think the claim in this tweet is implausible and damages their credibility.
As is, I'm just kind of confused - what are they saying they're better/bigger than?
It's like saying the old incandescent light bulb is better than the LED light bulb since it consumes more power.
I'm also a bit confused, especially if you look at the underlying information in their press release. Nikola is touting high energy consumption as a metric on how good their trucks are?
It's like saying the old incandescent light bulb is better than the LED light bulb since it consumes more power.
They are saying that they are going to replace the diesel semi. I would like to see it come together because the Nikola can be ZERO emissions provided the hydrogen can be produced without emissions. As for for the Tesla. as long as there are still coal and natural gas generation stations on the grid then emissions are just a matter of geography.
The reality is that electrolysing water for Hydrogen, then compressing and storing it, then converting back to electricity in a fuel cell stack is HORRIBLE for round trip energy efficiency. This factor "helps" Nikola's calculation make them the biggest energy user in the mythical future where they've taken over the trucking market. However it also means they'll need to build out a truly gargantuan infrastructure of renewables to power it.
So if you're happy to assume there's going to be enough dedicated renewable energy available to power those imaginary Nikola trucks, then there's enough for 3-4 entire fleets of the electric trucks which are actually going to take the market.
Renewables that could be better deployed by using a small fraction of them to power electric trucks, and the remainder to displace FF generation. Rather than squandering them on horrendously inefficient H2 storage.
More embarrassing is that he starts the energy efficiency slide with the energy in the Hydrogen without saying how it got there. It gives the impression he has an efficiency of 70% for the fuel, whereas that's (a) ambitious for a PEM; and (b) just one stage in the process. By the time you've spent 50+kWh electrolysing the water, and another 15kWh compressing the Hydrogen, you end up with a pitiful ~33% round trip efficiency. Then you put it in a battery (hint: why not just skip the Hydrogen part?)
Forever all this is irrelevant as he lost me much earlier on when he claimed the Nikola 1 would be zero emissions including at generation, and then cited steam reformation as one of the ways they'll make the Hydrogen. Steam reforming of natural gas that is. You know, just another FF pushing out loads of CO2 and some other polluting emissions.
There is zero chance that their patent infringement law suit will go anywhere. I am sure they know that but are doing it as a publicity stunt.
The 800 truck "order" from Anheuser-Busch is just their projected truck requirements and they said that they would consider Nikola to be included as one of the suppliers.
In order to use more energy than the 33M trucks on the road today in the USA the energy consumed by each Nikola truck would have to consume 1000 x more than the average truck! Or maybe they believe that in 10 years there will be less than 500k trucks on the road? These statements appear to be made without any connection to reality, are they just claiming that they will consume more energy than Tesla trucks? If so they should be more specific.
I think I finally get it. They are saying that Nikola as a company will consume more energy than any other single company. So they say they will consume more than GM or Ford does to make cars and trucks. Does a company like PG&E consider themselves as a consumer of energy because they buy or produce electricity for a large part of California which they in turn sell?
Energy convergence; the process of changing one form of energy into another.
Energy density; The amount of energy stored in a given system or region of space per unit volume.
Energy storage; The capture of energy produced at one time for use at a later time.
If Hydrogen can do this more efficiently then it's the way to go.
