Fuelling debate
18 March 2024
With all the recent coverage of alternatives to fossil fuels on the blog recently, I’ve been taking a closer look at the documents relating to the UK government’s call for evidence relating to the decarbonisation of non-road mobile machinery (NRMM).
As previously mentioned on the site, the government has asked for comments by 26 March on its discussion document relating to the issue, to help frame its strategy to achieve Net Zero by 2050.
And there are some fascinating facts and figures in the Call for Evidence document.
Emissions from NRMM such as excavators, generators, forklifts and tractors are estimated to constitute approximately 11.4 million tonnes of CO2 per year, equivalent to 2.7% of total UK greenhouse gas emissions.
The document also makes the point that emissions can be reduced by making machines work more efficiently, citing examples of replacing hydraulic transmissions with electric ones, or improving thermal insulation on certain equipment.
Operator efficiency can also play a part, such as by reducing machine idling, as well as avoiding over-specifying power requirements of equipment like generators. The document suggests that improving operator efficiency could reduce emissions by anything from 5% to 30% depending on machine type.
The authors seem to have grasped a number of key points regarding potential obstacles to transitioning towards new technology. For example, they recognise that “the cost of electric machines, in particular battery electric machines, can be greater than that of fossil fuel equivalents.”
Similarly, they say that hydrogen fuel cells “might be less suited for use in rugged environments due to potential susceptibility to vibrations.”
The document also shows awareness of possible difficulties in securing finance or insurance for alternatively powered NRMM owing to its novelty or perceived lower resale value, with the latter factor being compounded if traditional export markets are not in a position to accept newer technology.
Other limiting factors include the availability of grid connections and grid capacity for electrifying some sites and to power equipment, and that the hydrogen fuel supply chain clearly needs further development.
Site storage facilities and safety relating to battery charging and alternative fuels also need to be considered.
The Call for Evidence document also suggests cases where it might be difficult to deploy new fuelling options. These include smaller sites with limited storage space, short duration projects where payback times are too short, and remote locations that are difficult to service.
It suggests that the mining industry has the highest proportion of hard-to-deploy machinery (76%), with construction at 15% and ‘other’ (including mostly low-powered generators) comprising 36%.
Some serious research has clearly gone into preparing the document and it will be fascinating to see what measures are up for further discussion following the consultation.
Photo: PIRO/Pixabay
