Written evidence submitted by ULEMCo Ltd (CGE0005)

1.0 About ULEMCo Ltd

1.1 ULEMCo Ltd is the world’s first hydrogen commercial vehicle conversion company, enabling fleet, commercial and niche vehicle owners to have access to zero emission hydrogen fuel, as part of their strategies to reduce transport related carbon emissions.

1.2 ULEMCo is based in Liverpool, UK and was founded in 2014 as a spin out of Revolve Technologies, to commercialise intellectual property and capability in hydrogen combustion engine technology. The company converts vehicles, having started with diesel Ford Transit vans, to enable them to run on commercially available hydrogen. The technology allows vehicle fleet managers to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions to ultra-low levels.

1.3 Commercial fleets across the UK benefit from a reduced carbon foot print while still having the full range capability of standard diesel vehicles. Alongside various partners, ULEMCo already supports a fleet of vehicles across a range of hydrogen hubs in the UK. The company is targeting commercial fleet conversions to grow the market significantly over the next 18 months, and then expand into other vehicle types over the longer term. Its growth plans include creating a hydrogen re-fuelling network, to capitalise on the existing local infrastructure for this ‘green’ fuel.

2.0 Summary

2.1 ULEMCo have repeatedly shown that hydrogen combustion vehicles, will deliver immediate CO2 reduction (20-70% tank to wheel) and air quality improvements in real world use cycles with a technology that is affordable and requires little or no compromise from the vehicle users

2.2 However hydrogen combustion for transport applications particularly heavy duty such as large vans, HGV and marine are being ignored in policy and support beyond UK R&I investments.

2.3 With a relatively small amount of support in terms of bridging the gap between current early stage deployment cost to that of scaled deployment it could save tens of thousands of tonnes of CO2 per annum by 2030 at the same time as building on UK competitive advantage in engine technology, manufacturing and supply chain.

3.0 How the development and deployment of technology can best be supported, and the extent to which the Government should support specific technologies or pursue a ‘technology neutral’ approach;

3.1 The fact is that current policy support is not technology neutral despite the “ambition” to be so as evidenced by the various mechanisms for financial support within FIT, RHI, and even fuel tax.

3.2 Technologies that are needed to shift and transform the energy system are at various stages of development and largely not deployed at their 2050 scale; therefore, any policy and support mechanisms need to be flexible to adapt to changes and reflect the stages of their relative development.

3.3 By way of example, the support and policy for hydrogen vehicles, pales into insignificance when compared to battery-based technology solution’s research and development budgets. [e.g.: see OLEV and APC budgets for BEV (over £600m on the battery challenge alone) versus £23m from the HTP programme.

3.4 Further to the above ULEMCo’s core technology, based on hydrogen combustion, is repeatedly ignored in all policy, and purposefully excluded in the aforementioned HTP support https://ee.ricardo.com/htpgrants, despite it’s proven capability to reduce C02 emissions up to 70% by displacing diesel, alongside improving air quality ( see below for results of VCA witnessed emissions tests on EURO 5 van) at a cost that is far cheaper than other hydrogen vehicle options.

3.5 We suggest that the S&T committee ask for a review of the opportunities of hydrogen combustion and other hydrogen solutions within the “Road to Zero Strategy” , assuming that hydrogen is definitely part of the energy mix (it is mentioned but in a very minor scale and largely post 2030 for deployment) and the Department for Transport develops a credible model of the route to building a scaled, low carbon hydrogen fuel infrastructure from now into 2030, 2040 and 2050.

4.0 The relative priority that should be attached to developing new technologies compared to deploying existing technologies, including consideration of the costs and pollution involved in the decommissioning of technologies or infrastructure;

4.1 Without prioritising new technologies, which are by their very nature “new” and therefore entail more risk, more cost, change of behaviour, alternative infrastructures, they will not be on a level playing field with existing technologies.

4.2 The requirement to decarbonise is a social cost that is not factored into buying decisions of individuals or businesses. It therefore should be a government priority to favour new over existing solutions, assuming there is credible evidence for their ability to deliver carbon saving or improved air quality.

4.3 Supporting hydrogen combustion approaches (whether in heat or for transport) is a re-purposing approach that does not require wholesale change to energy; it needs support to help get the hydrogen supply infrastructure to scale, but applies known technologies, and existing skills. This is very productive route to the energy transformation which is more easily and readily available than other proposed solutions, which are hard to scale like battery electric vehicles, and the infrastructure investment needed to supply their mass take up.

5.0 Examples of specific technologies whose development and deployment have been effectively supported so far, as well as those that show particular promise for meeting the Government’s carbon emissions targets or supporting the UK’s economy, or which would benefit from specific Government action, in the future;

5.1 Hydrogen combustion should be included in the portfolio of solutions for decarbonisation of transport applications. To date this is ignored in all evidence assessments, and policy yet it is a route that not only delivers environmental benefit but also protects, safeguard and grow millions of jobs across the UK.

5.2 Past data suggested that hydrogen combustion was inefficient and risks creating worse NOx than diesel. Our recent work, supported in many cases with UK R&I funding support has shown that not only can hydrogen combustion be efficient (3-10% energy use improvement), it will reduce tank to wheel and well to wheel CO2 emissions, at the same time as reducing NOx in real world cycles. The following early stage trial data shows the level of promise of this approach in REAL WORLD use.

5.3 This is an approach is available NOW and could contribute significantly to reducing emissions over the next carbon budget period, particularly for HGV and other heavy-duty applications where battery electric solutions will not be viable.

5.4 For instance recent results from the OLEV and Innovate supported LEFT project ”HyTIME” which is a consortium between ULEMCo, Ocado, Aberdeen City Council, Westminster City Council, Veolia, Yorkshire Ambulance Service, Commercial Group and London Fire Brigade, shows that a fleet of 30 refuse collection vehicles would save over 660 tonnes of CO2e per annum with little or no change to their daily use cycle, payload or operation than to fill with hydrogen alongside their diesel refuelling every other day.

6.0 The role of the Industrial Strategy ‘Clean Growth Grand Challenge’, and what the Government should do to ensure it contributes effectively to meeting emissions targets.

6.1 ISCF funding should be used to support scaled adoption of whole system hydrogen energy demonstrations at scale, in local clusters, with an integrated approach that will deliver more cost-effective solutions than currently being proposed.

6.2 R&D support should be included within the above for bringing the cost down of hydrogen applications, and developing the UK supply chain. This would include fuel cell technology manufacturing centre of excellence for the longer-term solutions, alongside advanced thermal propulsion with hydrogen

6.3 This should cover all forms of transport, on and off road, rail, marine as well as stationary power

October 2018