JCB's hydrogen car Hydromax hits 406 mph record at Bonneville

[Skye Jacobs]

What just happened? JCB's hydrogen-powered land-speed vehicle reached 406.320 mph at the Bonneville Salt Flats in Utah, setting a new speed record for a hydrogen-fueled internal-combustion vehicle. The Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile confirmed the record after driver Andy Green completed the run Tuesday. The 406.320 mph result surpassed the previous record of 185.5 mph, set by BMW's H2R in 2004.

Green drove JCB's Hydromax, a specially built vehicle designed to test hydrogen combustion at extreme speeds. The British equipment manufacturer is developing hydrogen engines for its construction and agricultural machinery, and the record run was intended to demonstrate what the technology can do under demanding conditions.

"The ground comes at you very, very quickly," Green told The New York Times. "You're driving five or six times as fast as on the interstate. Everything happens very quickly."

The Hydromax does not use a hydrogen fuel cell or an electric drivetrain. Instead, it is powered by hydrogen-burning internal-combustion engines. JCB has called it "the fastest hydrogen-powered vehicle of any kind in history."

The car faced many of the same challenges as other land-speed vehicles, including vibration, noise, heat, and limited visual reference points. Green said the course markers appeared to pass by faster as the vehicle accelerated across the white salt surface. The car took about 72 seconds to accelerate from 50 mph to 400 mph.

"You can physically see the curvature of the earth," Green said. "This smooth surface is so long."

The run took place on a 12-mile course at Bonneville, a roughly 30,000-acre salt flat in Utah's Great Salt Lake Basin. The site has been used for land-speed competitions since 1912 because its hard, flat surface provides a long stretch for high-speed runs.

Green, 64, is well known in land-speed racing. In 1997, he became the first person to break the sound barrier on land when he drove ThrustSSC to an average speed of 763.035 mph in Nevada's Black Rock Desert. The vehicle was powered by two Rolls-Royce engines originally designed for a Phantom fighter jet.

He said he believed he had retired from speed racing before JCB approached him about the Hydromax project.

The new record is nowhere near the overall land-speed record Green set nearly three decades ago. It wasn't meant to be. The vehicle was built to establish a record for hydrogen combustion and support JCB's work on engines that could run on hydrogen rather than diesel.

Hydrogen combustion is drawing attention as equipment makers look for ways to cut carbon emissions from machines that can be difficult to electrify. Heavy construction and agricultural equipment often require long operating hours, high power output and quick refueling, all of which can be more difficult to achieve with large battery packs.

Green said water was the only exhaust product from the Hydromax. "This is as zero carbon as it gets," he said.

Mohammed Ben Sulayem, president of the FIA, called the result a "historic milestone" in a statement. The organization said the vehicle was not built to compete for the overall land-speed record, but that the run marked an important development for motorsports and hydrogen technology.

Image credit: The New York Times

Permalink to story:

JCB's hydrogen car Hydromax hits 406 mph record at Bonneville

 

[LordVile95]

Hydrogen is the better fossil fuel alternative but battery vehicles had more lobbying behind them. Why would you push for a fuel source that most countries can produce themselves.

 

[RudyBob]

I love land speed records whatever the vehicle. I rode my Honda 1300 VTX on the salt flats. Fun.

 

[Dreadcthulhu]

Hydrogen is the better fossil fuel alternative but battery vehicles had more lobbying behind them. Why would you push for a fuel source that most countries can produce themselves.

Have you seen how much hydrogen costs at the pump? Most stations in CA want $26 a kg or more right now (and that is with the CA government being the ones who paid to have most of those stations built.) 1 kg of hydrogen conveniently has pretty much the same energy content as 1 gallon of gas, for reference. So burning it in a combustion vehicle is only worthwhile for niche applications, like the high speed vehicle in this article.

Even in a fuel cell vehicle (which are much more efficient than combustion engines) it still ends up being costing twice as much per mile as running a similar sized car off of California's expensive gas.

And fuel cells themselves are expensive, more expensive than a large battery pack at this point. And require plenty of genuinely rare platinum group metals. Its a lot easier to get a hold of the materials to produce lithium batteries. And do note that is after the Japanese & S. Korean governments, along with Toyota, Honda, and Hyundai, have sunk a huge amount of R&D in trying to make them cheaper.

 

[LordVile95]

Have you seen how much hydrogen costs at the pump? Most stations in CA want $26 a kg or more right now (and that is with the CA government being the ones who paid to have most of those stations built.) 1 kg of hydrogen conveniently has pretty much the same energy content as 1 gallon of gas, for reference. So burning it in a combustion vehicle is only worthwhile for niche applications, like the high speed vehicle in this article.

Economies of scale, you could make it significantly cheaper than fossil fuels if you actually operated it at scale.

Even in a fuel cell vehicle (which are much more efficient than combustion engines) it still ends up being costing twice as much per mile as running a similar sized car off of California's expensive gas.

Again economies of scale.

And fuel cells themselves are expensive, more expensive than a large battery pack at this point. And require plenty of genuinely rare platinum group metals. Its a lot easier to get a hold of the materials to produce lithium batteries. And do note that is after the Japanese & S. Korean governments, along with Toyota, Honda, and Hyundai, have sunk a huge amount of R&D in trying to make them cheaper.

Again economies of scale. However you don’t have to replace them or worry about degradation or lithium fires

 

[Plutoisaplanet]

Hydrogen is the better fossil fuel alternative but battery vehicles had more lobbying behind them. Why would you push for a fuel source that most countries can produce themselves.

You're conflating hydrogen fuel cells with hydrogen combustion. This article is not talking about hydrogen fuel cells at all. Regardless, hydrogen fuel is an energy storage mechanism as it does not abundantly exist in nature ready to burn (unless you're talking about hydrocarbons, which do have emissions). So you cannot say it is a fuel source because you still need electricity to produce the fuel, and thus a reliance on other countries.

Economies of scale, you could make it significantly cheaper than fossil fuels if you actually operated it at scale.

Again economies of scale.

Again economies of scale. However you don’t have to replace them or worry about degradation or lithium fires

All these are chicken or the egg problems that make adoption difficult. Unlike with EVs, making enough hydrogen fueling stations and vehicles involve far more capital to ever hope to tackle economies of scale. With EVs, the production side was already ready.

There is risk for any high energy density source and that includes hydrogen. In fact there's statistical evidence that EV fires are far safer than gas fires because EV fires happen 30-60x less often than in gas cars, so you're making the wrong comparison:
https://www.motortrend.com/features/you-are-wrong-about-ev-fires
https://www.kbb.com/car-news/study-electric-vehicles-involved-in-fewest-car-fires/

EVs definitely burn longer and more intensely than internal combustion engines, but they also take longer to catch fire. Like other fuel sources, the fire depends on the amount of fuel. If a low battery EV catches fire for instance, it'll burn for a far shorter time.

There are also safety issues with hydrogen fuel that uniquely apply to it, such as no odor, color, or taste if it leaks. It's more flammable than gasoline, and even the fires are nearly invisible. There are no additives in use to make it more noticeable either (ie. sulfur in natural gas) because they're largely incompatible with fuel cells. That's one of the reasons hydrogen as a fuel source is primarily used in industrial applications, because those are either used outdoors or with hydrogen sensors installed indoors.

Regardless, there are other reasons hydrogen is safer than gas fires, such as ease of dissipation, lower flame temperatures, and difficulty of combustion. All things considered, I'd suggest that hydrogen fuel cells are around as safe as gasoline: https://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/h2_safety_fsheet.pdf

 

[LordVile95]

You're conflating hydrogen fuel cells with hydrogen combustion. This article is not talking about hydrogen fuel cells at all. Regardless, hydrogen fuel is an energy storage mechanism as it does not abundantly exist in nature ready to burn (unless you're talking about hydrocarbons, which do have emissions). So you cannot say it is a fuel source because you still need electricity to produce the fuel, and thus a reliance on other countries.

You are aware than sun and wind aren’t controlled by other countries right?

All these are chicken or the egg problems that make adoption difficult. Unlike with EVs, making enough hydrogen fueling stations and vehicles involve far more capital to ever hope to tackle economies of scale. With EVs, the production side was already ready.

Not really it’s a drop in upgrade to existing infrastructure, if anything building out and maintaining more EV chargers is the more difficult and costly option.

There is risk for any high energy density source and that includes hydrogen. In fact there's statistical evidence that EV fires are far safer than gas fires because EV fires happen 30-60x less often than in gas cars, so you're making the wrong comparison:
https://www.motortrend.com/features/you-are-wrong-about-ev-fires
https://www.kbb.com/car-news/study-electric-vehicles-involved-in-fewest-car-fires/

EVs definitely burn longer and more intensely than internal combustion engines, but they also take longer to catch fire. Like other fuel sources, the fire depends on the amount of fuel. If a low battery EV catches fire for instance, it'll burn for a far shorter time.

Nope, they catch fire and are near impossible to put out and will carry on catching fire until every damaged cell burns.

There are also safety issues with hydrogen fuel that uniquely apply to it, such as no odor, color, or taste if it leaks. It's more flammable than gasoline, and even the fires are nearly invisible. There are no additives in use to make it more noticeable either (ie. sulfur in natural gas) because they're largely incompatible with fuel cells. That's one of the reasons hydrogen as a fuel source is primarily used in industrial applications, because those are either used outdoors or with hydrogen sensors installed indoors.

Regardless, there are other reasons hydrogen is safer than gas fires, such as ease of dissipation, lower flame temperatures, and difficulty of combustion. All things considered, I'd suggest that hydrogen fuel cells are around as safe as gasoline: https://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/h2_safety_fsheet.pdf

Right so you don’t know how hydrogen works and you’ve also contradicted yourself

 

[Mr Majestyk]

Hydrogen is the better fossil fuel alternative but battery vehicles had more lobbying behind them. Why would you push for a fuel source that most countries can produce themselves.

How is it the better fuel when 94% of global hydrogen is made by dirty methods that negate all the benefits of the fuel itself. Only 6% is green hydrogen and is about 3x dearer than dirty hydrogen.

 

[Theinsanegamer]

Hydrogen is the better fossil fuel alternative but battery vehicles had more lobbying behind them. Why would you push for a fuel source that most countries can produce themselves.

No. Hydrogen has been played with since the 70s. There are two MASSIVE issues with hydrogen.

The first is generation. Hydrogen does not exist in atmosphere. If you want to know why, go back to high school and take chemistry again. It must be sourced from one of 3 methods: grey, blue, or green hydrogen. Grey and Blue are both from hydrocarbons and dont fix the oil dependency issue, and both still produce emissions, and Green requires ENORMOUS amounts of energy, to the point that even with nuclear power you are spending nearly as much energy as you can get out of the hydrogen produced.

The second is transportation. Again, if you want to know more, see Chemistry 101, but the short version is hydrogen is very tiny. It is impossible to permanently contain. The only way to temporarily contain it, is under extremely high pressure forcing it into a liquid form. Current hydrogen fuel cells store this fuel at pressure sin excess of 15,000 PSI. This not only poses a danger if that tank is ruptured in an accident, but it cant hold the fuel for long. Over time, that hydrogen leaks out. That means that this statement:

Not really it’s a drop in upgrade to existing infrastructure, if anything building out and maintaining more EV chargers is the more difficult and costly option.

is laughably ignorant. The current oil infrastructure would be TOTALLY USELESS for hydrogen. None of the tanks or pumps in place today could hold hydrogen for any length of time, meaning you would need to rip out ALL the gasoline infrastructure, which means taking out the huge underground tanks. And that is just the filling stations. To actually get the hydrogen on site, you need to move it in trucks. Except the losses are enormous, every time you transfer tanks, you are losing some hydrogen, and it is constantly leaking out. So you would need hydrogen refineries everywhere, in far greater number, just to keep the stations fueled.

Now combine those problems together. The strategic oil reserve? Impossible. There's no way to contain it. So all fuel would need to be on demand. Any increase in demand, and POOF you now have widespread fuel shortages. Same if there is any sort of major power loss. Your production HAS to meet demand, because any excess will be lost energy, as the hydrogen just leaks out. We know from the likes of the Toyota Mirai that after 3 weeks, a full tank will be nearly depleted just from sitting. And the mirai had a sub 300 mile range, comparable to EVs.

With all this, you lead to the inevitable conclusion. When you factor in the constant losses, expensive production, and dangerous "storage", all you have done is make a more complicated battery. Instead of making huge amounts of electricity, using that electricity to split water atoms, packing those atoms under extreme pressure, transporting them to special stations, then filling your car with them, losses all the way, to then allow that hydrogen to react with oxygen to make electricity.....what if you just put that electricity directly IN THE CAR and bypass all that nonsense?

The rest of the world figured this out already. Even if you made producing green hydrogen easier, without massive energy consumption, you still have the storage issues, and short of some new Sci-Fi element that blocks protons you are not going to solve that. Hydrogen has its place in niche use cases, but in modern vehicles it is an expensive boondoggle that brings no real advantage over just charging EV batteries.

Right so you don’t know how hydrogen works and you’ve also contradicted yourself

Couldnt have said it better myself. "muh economies of scale" only work if there is work to conserve. But every form of hydrogen either requires use of fossil fuels, or gargantuan amounts of electricity. Doubling that....just doubles your resource usage. Producing more of it doesnt fix either problem.

If you're going to dig up a gas station to put in hydrogen infrastructure.....you could just run power cables for EV chargers instead. And unlike hydrogen, batteries have remained on a slow consistent march of better capacity, charging speed, and cost reduction. 800v EVs can charge in 15-18 minutes, trucks like the Silverado EV can push almost 500 miles on a full charge, or 230 when towing a heavy trailer. Those are numbers that actually make it useful.

 

[Plutoisaplanet]

You are aware than sun and wind aren’t controlled by other countries right?

Not really it’s a drop in upgrade to existing infrastructure, if anything building out and maintaining more EV chargers is the more difficult and costly option.
[/QUOTE]
This literally makes no sense because the vast majority of EVs are charged at home where there's already plenty of infrastructure (you just need to add another outlet). Meanwhile every hydrogen powered vehicle needs to be charged at fuel stations, and if they produce the hydrogen then they need far more electrical power.

The alternative is if you're converting natural gas to Hydrogen, which produces plenty of emissions. The workaround I've heard of is methane pyrolysis which converts carbon to a solid and by its very nature is high risk so it cannot be done at the fuel station. Then that means transportation of hydrogen and specialized production facilities with specialized maintenance.

Nope, they catch fire and are near impossible to put out and will carry on catching fire until every damaged cell burns.

You essentially agreed with what I said but left out the massive benefit of EVs, which is that fires happen 30-60x less frequently. You don't even talk about hydrogen powered vehicle fire safety lol. Is it just magical and never catches fire?