LPG for Forklift Trucks - wlpga.org · LPG for Forklift Trucks Page 8 Internal combustion engine trucks, Class 4 forklifts, use cushion tires designed to be used indoors on smooth

LPG for Forklift Trucks

Innovation & Technology

Atlantic Consulting

The World LPG Association (WLPGA)

The WLPGA was established in 1987 in Dublin and unites the broad interests of the vast worldwide LPG industry in one organisation. It was granted Category II Consultative Status with the United Nations Economic and Social Council in 1989.

The WLPGA promotes the use of LPG to foster a safer, cleaner, healthier and more prosperous world.

Acknowledgements

This report has been developed jointly by Atlantic Consulting and the WLPGA, Innovation & Technology Group.

Nikos Xydas (WLPGA) coordinated this project.

Disclaimer This report has been authored by Atlantic Consulting in collaboration with WLPGA. Ownership of the contents, data and conclusions in this report remains jointly with the author and the WLPGA. The content has been compiled and/or derived from public sources believed to be reliable. Nevertheless, this report is provided ‘as is’ without any representations or warranty. It is within the responsibility of the user of this report to verify and to assess the validity and integrity of the content. The user uses this report and its content at his/her own risk. The author disclaims any and all representations and warranties, expressed or implied, such as, but without limitation, merchantability, fitness for any particular purpose, accuracy, completeness, correctness, infringement of third party intellectual property rights. To the extent permitted by applicable law, the author disclaims any and all liability for direct damages and/or indirect damages (e.g. consequential damages, loss of income, business or profit, reputation) occurring from the use of this report. Citation Atlantic Consulting (2018), LPG Forklift Trucks, Commissioned by WLPGA, Gattikon (Zürich), Switzerland

Atlantic Consulting

Atlantic Consulting provides independent research and analysis about energy and chemicals to companies, governments and other interested organisations. Its work is focused on assessment of environmental impacts, markets and economics. The company was founded in 1994 in London, and since 2000 has been based in Gattikon, just outside of Zürich, Switzerland.

LPG in Forklift Trucks

Page 3 LPG for Forklift Trucks

Contents Page

Chapter One

Introduction 5

Chapter Two

Executive summary 6

Chapter Three

Forklift Markets: LPG - A Major Player 7

3.1 Types of Forklifts and Classifications 7

3.2 Market Overview 9 3.2.1 Sales and Growth, All Forklifts 9 3.2.2 Market Shares, Industrial and Warehouse 10 3.2.3 Market Shares of Fuel Types 11

3.2.3.1 For all Industrial Forklifts 11 3.2.3.2 For Industrial, Internal-Combustion Forklifts 13 3.2.3.3 For all Forklifts 14

3.2.4 Future Competition Between Fuels 15

Chapter Four

Why LPG can Compete 16

4.1 Cost/Performance Findings 16 4.1.1 Costs 17 4.1.2 Useful Life 17 4.1.3 Operation of Forklift trucks, Refilling and Charging 18 4.1.4 Usage Indoors 18 4.1.5 Quality of Fuel 19 4.1.6 Propane Forklift Case Study 20

4.2 Marketing Findings 22 4.2.1 Manufacturers’ and Dealers’ Electric Bias 22 4.2.2 Electrics Growing Presence, Innovation and Versatility 22 4.2.3 Electricity has a ‘Bundled’ Fuelling Package 22 4.2.4 Diesel on the Defensive 22

4.3 Generalised Cost Comparison 24 4.3.1 Basis of the Comparison 24 4.3.2 Findings of the Comparison 24

LPG for Forklift Trucks Page 4

4.4 Sources of Information 27 4.4.1 Literature Sources 28

Chapter Five

Environmental Impact: LPG is Strong 32

5.1 Environmental Impact of Forklifts 32

5.2 Carbon footprint comparisons of forklifts 32

5.3 Carbon Footprint Comparison of LPG, Diesel and Electric, by Country 35 5.3.1 Basis of the Comparison 35 5.3.2 Findings of the Comparison 36

5.4 Local Air Quality Comparisons 38

5.5 Environmental Innovation in Forklifts 38

Chapter Six

Recommendations 39

6.1 Status 39

6.2 Recommendations 39

References 41


Chapter One

Introduction The aim of this document is to promote understanding amongst the LPG (Liquefied Petroleum Gas) industry and other stakeholders of the technical possibilities, costs, environmental impact and market situation and market potential for LPG forklifts. Ultimately this is to inform the LPG community of the opportunities in this application and how to maximise them. The report includes:

An overview of global and regional markets for forklifts, by type and fuel; A cost/performance comparison by fuel type; A carbon footprint and environmental impact comparison;

LPG forklifts are used to engage, lift, and transfer palletized loads in warehousing, manufacturing, materials handling, and construction applications both indoors and outdoors. Diesel, electricity and LPG are the ‘big three’ when it comes to fuel for fork lift trucks and each of the options has advantages and disadvantages but electricity and diesel do not compare well to the cleaner, greener LPG option.


Chapter Two

Executive summary

LPG has a strong position as a forklift fuel. In industrial forklift trucks that operate both indoors and out in a variety of tasks, LPG has a one-third market share globally. LPG forklifts are speedy, strong and long-running, usually at low environmental impact and at a competitive cost. Clearly LPG is superior to the other two main fuels, diesel or electric, for a significant number of customers. Nonetheless, this strength is threatened. Electric forklifts are on the rise, thanks to a combination of factors: demand for warehousing is growing about twice as fast as industry, and many warehouses use electric forklifts only; the electric car industry is booming – think Tesla – forecast to be at least ten times larger than today by 2030, with investment and innovation naturally spilling over into forklifts; forklift manufacturers and dealers prefer electric, because those forklifts cost about half again as much as LPG or diesel trucks. In forklifts, electric is very much mainstream, has no tailpipe emissions and offers a wider variety of styles and configurations. Despite this, LPG need not fly a white flag. As this report shows, it still has a strong position in industrial forklifts, and the seeming ‘takeover’ of electric is more driven by growth in warehousing than by inherent advantages of electric. LPG can compete on costs and it can win on carbon footprints – an increasingly important issue. This report recommends that LPG build on its strength: defend and consolidate its position in the industrial segment. LPG also should seize market share from diesel, which has recently suffered massive reputational damage. Finally, BioLPG should be pursued, because this makes LPG carbon footprints even lower. Should LPG try to enter the warehousing forklift segment, where it is now almost completely absent? This report warns against an overhasty ‘yes’. LPG’s competitive advantage in warehousing is not clear and perhaps does not exist. Chasing after it blindly might waste resources better spent on defending and consolidating LPG’s known strengths. There is a clear marketing task ahead for LPG associations. They can lead by addressing cost/performance and environmental impacts. Getting the facts out will help sales and signal that the industry is serious about staying strong in forklifts. They can also lead more interaction with forklift manufacturers (and perhaps dealers). This is not easy: as experience with Autogas and car manufacturers has shown – opening doors can be very hard. But they must be opened to facilitate joint-development projects that will keep LPG forklifts competitive with electric ones. Joint-development and support of LPG school buses led to success in the USA: this is probably the best model for LPG in forklifts.


Chapter Three

Forklift Markets: LPG - A Major Player

This chapter describes global and regional markets for forklifts, by kind and by fuel type. It starts with a subsection on how forklifts are classified and follows with a market overview.

3.1 Types of Forklifts and Classifications

From an LPG standpoint, there are two types of forklifts:

Industrial forklifts: all-purpose forklifts with a sitting driver and a counterbalance, Classes 1, 4 and 5 as defined by the Industrial Truck Association (ITA). These can be electric, diesel or LPG powered.

Warehouse forklifts: specialised lifts for narrow aisles and other warehouse features. Some have

sitting drivers, some have walking ‘drivers’. ITA classes 2 and 3 are electric only. In theory LPG could power some of these, but in practice it does not.

There are two other ITA classes of forklifts, Classes 6 and 7. These are basically off-road, outdoor industrial vehicles. They are not covered in this report, because they are not a market for LPG and very limited market data for them are available. The ITA classes are defined as: Class 1 – Electric Rider Trucks – Counterbalanced Class 2 – Electric Warehouse Rider Trucks Class 3 – Electric Warehouse Pedestrian Trucks Class 4 – Internal Combustion Trucks, Cushion Tyres, Counterbalanced Class 5 – Internal Combustion Trucks, Pneumatic Tires, Counterbalanced

Electric Rider Trucks use industrial batteries and an electric motor. They are ideal for applications where air quality and fuel fumes are a concern. These kinds of forklifts are used indoors with cushion tires designed to operate on smooth floors. They can also be equipped with pneumatic tires and used for dry, outdoor duties. Electric rider trucks are of a wide variety: from stand-up riders to sit-down models with a lifting capacity of 3,600 kg or more.


Internal combustion engine trucks, Class 4 forklifts, use cushion tires designed to be used indoors on smooth floors and can handle loads up to 7,000 kg. The operator sits down to operate the machine that typically runs on LPG.

Internal combustion trucks, Class 5 forklifts, are in many ways similar to Class 4, but with different tires, pneumatic ones, designed for rough surfaces and/or outdoor use. The lifting capacity for a Class 5 lift truck ranges up to 25,000 kg. With this kind of power, Class 5 forklifts are a go-to for loading and unloading large containers. Class 5 forklifts can use Compressed Natural Gas (CNG), diesel, LPG, or gasoline.

LPG forklift trucks present an invaluable alternative to both diesel and electric counterbalance forklifts, and the low emissions of LPG, means LPG forklift trucks can be used almost anywhere. Refuelling of LPG forklift trucks has several advantages over other alternatives; replacing an empty LPG cylinder with a full one is a quick procedure, compared to battery recharging or change-overs associated with electric trucks.


3.2 Market Overview

In the following subsections, sales of all forklifts are reviewed, then market shares of industrial and warehouse forklifts and finally market shares of fuel types. The global ‘forklift park’ – the number of forklifts in use – is probably about ten million worldwide. This is based on industry rules-of-thumb that a forklift has an economic lifetime of 10,000-20,000 operating hours and that it operates for 2,000 hours a year. By the arithmetic alone, this suggests that a typical lifetime is five to ten years, i.e. an average of 7.5 years. We estimate nine years as typical, however, because of widespread, anecdotal reports that many operators run their forklifts beyond their economic life, i.e. to save capital costs they keep them going for longer.

3.2.1 Sales and Growth, All Forklifts

In 2017, global sales of forklifts totalled to nearly 1.4 million units. This is up from just under 1 million in 2011: over the subsequent six years, sales have grown on average at about 6%. (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Forklift sales, global, 2011-2017

The major markets are Europe, China, North America and Japan ( Figure 2). Many market studies report that China is ‘the biggest forklift market in the world’. This is untrue: China is probably the biggest producer in the world, but Europe is still the biggest market.

Figure 2: Forklift market shares, by region, 2015

1

1 These percentages are believed not to be substantially different in 2018.

6% annual growth


The misperception is understandable, because the biggest growth driver has been China’s booming market, where sales have grown on average by 17% annually since 2001 (Figure 3). It has gone from an almost-insignificant market to the largest national market and the second-largest regional market of all.

Figure 3: Forklift sales, China, 2001-2017

In Europe, Japan and North America, growth has been far more modest, perhaps 1-2% annually since the millennium. For India, Southeast Asia and South America, detailed figures are not available, but anecdotal reports suggest growth since the millennium of perhaps 3-5% annually. In the developed regions (Europe, Japan, North America), sales are cyclical. In North America, for instance, sales peaked at 190,000 in 2000, plunged to a bottom of 130,000 in 2002, shot up to 190,000 in 2006, fell to under 100,000 in 2009 and finally recovered to 207,000 in 2017. So, it would not be accurate to project future sales simply by extending the 6%-annual-trend forward. Probably the right figure is in the 3-4% range over the next 10-15 years. What is the forklift park? Our broad estimate is that about ten million forklifts are currently operating worldwide.

3.2.2 Market Shares, Industrial and Warehouse

Industrial forklifts predominate over warehouse trucks. Globally the split is about 60/40, but this varies considerably by region. At the low end is Europe with a split of 40/60, while at the high end China has an 80/20 split (Figure 4). Over the last two to three decades, warehouse forklifts’ market share has grown, because the demand for warehousing has grown more rapidly than the demand for industrial forklifting. Over the past decade, these splits have held fairly constant, except for China. There, the split has fallen from around 90/10 to 80/20, and most market reports suggest it will continue to drop in coming years. Presumably this is due to the rapid growth in consumer spending in China, which has a knock-on effect of creating demand for warehouses.

17% annual growth


Figure 4: Demand for industrial and warehouse forklifts, by region

So, the industrial/warehouse split will probably continue to decline from 60/40 to maybe 55/45 in due course, but not rapidly. Judging from the trendline, it might hit 55/45 by 2030.

3.2.3 Market Shares of Fuel2 Types

Market share of fuel types are reported for all forklifts and for industrial forklifts. Warehouse forklifts are only electric, so it has 100% market share in that segment. From an LPG perspective, its share of industrial forklifts and industrial internal-combustion forklifts are most meaningful, so this is presented first. LPG’s share of all forklifts is presented at the end.

3.2.3.1 For all Industrial Forklifts

For all industrial forklifts, the fuel split for the major regions3 is roughly third/third/third for LPG, diesel and

electric (Table 1, Figure 5). By region, the splits differ considerably. Electric forklifts lead in Europe, diesel in China and Japan, and LPG in North America.

Table 1: All industrial forklift demand, by major region and fuel

Region LPG Diesel Electric

Europe 38% 14% 49%

China 18% 72% 10%

N America 61% 9% 31%

Japan 19% 44% 37%

Major regions 33% 39% 29%

For diesel, China is by far the largest market, whereas for LPG and electric, their regional splits are much broader (Figure 6). This might change in the near term, because China’s government has announced

2 Actually, fuel/energy type, but by ‘fuel type’ we mean both fuel and (electrical) energy.

3 We’ve reported the fuel split only for the major regions, because we don’t have the splits for the rest of the

world. The major regions account for 83% of the world.


regulations to cut diesel emissions, including those from forklifts. Market reports suggest that significant numbers of users will switch away from diesel – but this has yet to show up in the statistics.

Figure 5: Industrial forklift demand, by major region and fuel

Figure 6: Industrial forklift demand, by fuel and major region

This market split has not changed substantially over the past decade, except that China’s growth has boosted diesel’s share in the major regions (Figure 7).


Figure 7: Industrial forklift demand, major regions, 2008-154

3.2.3.2 For Industrial, Internal-Combustion Forklifts

For industrial, internal-combustion (IC) forklifts – i.e. LPG and diesel only – the LPG/diesel split for the major regions

5 is nearly 50/50, with a slight lead by diesel (Table 2, Figure 8). By region, the split differs considerably.

LPG leads in North America and Europe, diesel in China and Japan. Detailed historic data for the percentage splits (Table 2) are not available, but it appears that these have not changed dramatically over the past decade or so.

Table 2: Industrial IC forklift demand, by major region and fuel

Region LPG Diesel

Europe 73% 27%

China 20% 80%

N America 88% 12%

Japan 30% 70%

Major regions 46% 54% As noted above, for diesel, China is by far the largest market, whereas for LPG, the split across regions is much broader (Figure 9). Without China, LPG would have a larger global share than diesel. This might change in the near term, because China’s government has announced regulations to cut diesel emissions, including those from forklifts. Market reports suggest that significant numbers of users will switch away from diesel – but this has yet to show up in the statistics.

4 Internal combustion is not broken into LPG and diesel, because the detailed historical data for this are not

available. 5 We’ve reported the fuel split only for the major regions, because we don’t have the splits for the rest of the

world. The major regions account for 83% of the world.


Figure 8: Industrial IC forklift demand, by major region and fuel

Figure 9: Industrial forklift demand, by fuel and major region

3.2.3.3 For all Forklifts

For all forklifts – i.e. industrial and warehouse – the electric/IC split is 60/40 globally, with great variations by major region. Electricity leads in Europe, North America and Japan, but IC dominates in China (Figure 10).

Figure 10: Demand for forklifts, split by electric and IC, by major region and global

This picture is of course greatly influenced by the warehouse forklift segment (Figure 4), which is only electric.


3.2.4 Future Competition Between Fuels

Numerous media reports6 and industry assessments of forklifts describe the ‘rise of electric’. On the one hand,

this is true: in the USA, for instance, 25 years ago electrics accounted for about half of new forklift sales, while today they account for two-thirds. Precise figures are not available for Europe, but a similar trend is reported by industry insiders and observers. On the other hand, this probably would better be named the ‘rise of warehousing’ – which uses only electric forklifts. Sector analysts say that warehousing worldwide is growing 5-10%/year, and they predict this to continue for at least another decade or so. Worldwide manufacturing – a plausible proxy for the industrial sector – is, according to the UN Industrial Development Organization, growing at just above 3% annually. In the ‘industrialized’ regions of Europe and the US, that growth is less than 2%. The trend is credible: Amazon and other e-commerce companies are good examples, now accounting for 10% of US retail sales. As Mark Dmochowski, sales manager at Georgia Gas Distributors, says

7: “The construction of

new distribution facilities [warehouses] means an increased need for forklifts….Many of these facilities prefer to use electric-powered forklifts instead of internal combustion (IC) forklifts, which include propane, gasoline and diesel models. The new warehouses and distribution facilities coming to the area are geared toward e-commerce. That means the facilities have narrow aisles and tall shelving, which is the electric forklift environment. That’s the nature of the beast.” So, declining market shares are not necessarily a failure of LPG or diesel to compete, but rather the rise of a segment in which they do not compete, indeed in which they are not present. At the same time, however, it appears that the innovation and growth in warehousing has made electrics more competitive in industrial. Statistics are not available to show that, but plentiful evidence (see Chapter 0) suggests as much. In other words, LPG is indeed under threat from electric, but not for what might seem the obvious reason and not as much as is thought.

6 For example: https://www.mmh.com/article/top_20_lift_truck_suppliers_2015 or

https://www.mmh.com/article/top_20_lift_truck_suppliers_2017 7 https://www.lpgasmagazine.com/facing-challenges-in-the-forklift-market/

http://www.georgiagas.com/

https://www.mmh.com/article/top_20_lift_truck_suppliers_2015

https://www.mmh.com/article/top_20_lift_truck_suppliers_2017


Chapter Four

Why LPG can Compete

In forklifts, there is an ongoing competition between electricity, diesel and LPG. This is examined from two angles, cost/performance and marketing in this chapter and environmental impact in the next chapter. First the cost/performance findings are presented, then the marketing ones. This is followed by a generalised cost comparison developed for this study. Finally, the sources of information for all this are described in detail.

4.1 Cost/Performance Findings

An overall ranking of electric, diesel and LPG (Table 3) by issue was derived from a literature review and discussions with the industry. Some of the issues are reviewed further in the subsections below.

Table 3: Cost/performance issues, rankings by fuel

FUEL RANKING

ISSUE Electric Diesel LPG COMMENT

Lifetime cost 1 2 2 Electric is generally cheaper. In some cases, diesel and LPG can be cheaper than electric

Capital cost 3 2 1 Electric typically 1.5x as much as LPG. Diesel slightly more than LPG.

Operating cost 1 2 3 Electric engines far more efficient. Power-plant-to-wheel efficiency is about 65%. Internal combustion engines are around 20% efficient.

Maintenance cost 1 2 2 Internal-combustion engines need more service than electrics.

Operating cost volatility 1 2 2 LPG and diesel prices more volatile than power prices.

Ease of driving 1 2 2 Electric controls are said to be simpler.

Frequency of refilling 2 1 1 LPG and diesel almost always can do one shift per fill, electric is less certain.

Speed of refilling 2 1 1 Electrics run for eight hours, followed by eight hours of charging and eight hours of cooling. For >1 shift/day, multiple batteries needed. Battery-swapping takes longer than refilling diesel or LPG. Fast-chargers are being introduced that might shorten cycle considerably.

Ease of refilling 2 1 1 Swapping of batteries is more difficult than refilling diesel or LPG. Single batteries can weight over 1,000 kg. Nonetheless, for LPG there are concerns that refill cylinders (25-30 kg) are too heavy for a single-person lift and so cause a safety concern.

Power consistency 2 1 1 Electrics sometimes respond only after a pause. Diesel/electric respond immediately. Electrics can be sluggish at low charge.

Indoor emissions safety 1 3 2 Carbon monoxide can be a health risk. Particle emissions from diesel are a health risk. LPG lifts can be fitted with 3-way exhaust catalysts to remove HC, CO and NOx. Diesels can have 2-way cats that remove HC and CO.

Indoor emissions contamination

1 2 2 Some warehouses with food, drink or pharma forbid the use of diesel or LPG, because their exhausts could contaminate the warehouse


FUEL RANKING

ISSUE Electric Diesel LPG COMMENT

contents.

Multi-shift operation 2 1 1 Electrics need multiple batteries. (Fast-chargers might overcome this.) LPG and diesel can be quickly refuelled for another shift.

High speed and heavy lift

2 1 1 Internal combustion engines generally can reach higher speeds and lift capacities, i.e. they are better suited for heavy duty.

Outdoor operation 2 1 1 Electrics traditionally are infrequently used outdoors, because of ground-clearance and traction limitations.

Space requirement 2 1 1 Space needed for recharging is greater than that needed for reserve diesel or LPG.

Infrastructure for refuelling

1 2 2 It is generally considered less time- and effort-consuming to set up recharging than refuelling.

Versatility 1 2 2 Electric trucks are much more diverse, with niche designs for special applications (say, for narrow or tall aisles) that LPG/diesel do not serve.

Fuel storage risk 1 2 2 Storage of inflammable diesel and LPG presents some fire/safety risk.

Fuel contamination 1 1 2 Periodically there are incidents of higher hydrocarbons contaminating LPG, which leads to engine failures. Similar contamination has been known to occur with Autogas in cars.

4.1.1 Costs

Although forklift manufacturers are biased toward electric (see Section 4.2.1), they have published two detailed, objective cost comparisons (Table : refs 2 and 4). Also, a cost comparison by a power generator seems objective (Table : ref 6). Consistently their view is: diesel and LPG costs are comparable; while for LPG versus electricity, electric has higher capital costs, but lower maintenance and fuel costs that add up to a lower lifetime cost. Unlike comparisons of automotive fuels, forklift comparisons do not include road and excise taxes, from which they usually are exempt.

4.1.2 Useful Life

Most analyses and references presume that forklifts of all fuel types have an economic lifetime of about 7.5 years in 1-shift/day operations. Not surprisingly, there are many reports of forklifts being run for longer, either because a particular one is more robust, or the operator does not want to spend fresh capital. The Electric Power Research Institute claims that electric forklifts have an average lifetime of 11 years, while internal-combustion forklifts last on average only 7.5 years.


4.1.3 Operation of Forklift trucks, Refilling and Charging

Refilling LPG generally takes less than a minute: a fuel hose is disconnected from the empty cylinder and reconnected to the full cylinder. Cylinders are usually swapped by the forklift operator, but they can be heavy, above the 25-kg recommended per-person limit. Diesel is pumped to an onboard-tank, so avoids the lift problem. Batteries are typically recharged on an ‘8-8-8’ system, meaning they work for eight hours, are recharged for another eight and then cool down for another eight hours before re-use. LPG and diesel forklifts can easily work multiple, consecutive shifts. Only a short pause for refuelling is needed. Electric lifts can work multiple shifts, but this requires the swap of a fresh battery for a discharged one, which needs special equipment and takes 7-10 minutes

8. This incurs extra operating cost, and buying/maintaining

spare batteries is a significant capital expense (see Section 4.3.2). Fast-chargers are in the past few years available for electrics. Vendors such as AeroVironment, Minit-Charger and Power Designers USA say they can eliminate the 8-8-8 system and allow multi-shift operations without battery swaps.

4.1.4 Usage Indoors

LPG and diesel forklifts emit exhaust gases, which can settle when captured indoors. Anecdotal reports are of a film that can collect on indoor objects. It is unclear how common or troublesome this is. According to a warehouse-equipment supplier, BHS

9:

“There’s another reason that electric forklifts have been gaining more and more market share in the past few decades…. Engine exhaust can taint products, particularly in food and beverage storage applications. Because of the lack of emissions in electric forklifts, most warehouses that store consumables made the switch to electric long ago.”

Yale, a leading forklift manufacturer, also hints at this (Yale, 2010, p 1):

“With electric lift trucks…. there is no possibility of damage to your work product from engine exhaust, which can occur when using Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) trucks.”

There are no known regulations forbidding the use of LPG forklifts indoors, as long as proper ventilation is provided to remove carbon monoxide (State of Washington, 2005). Nonetheless, some companies – particularly those warehousing food, beverages, pharmaceuticals and sometimes even furniture – require that forklifts used indoors are electric only, to avoid the issue of indoor emissions. This policy is said to have become more widespread in the US and Europe over the past 20 years.

8 Watch a battery swap at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJL2hDkVYE0

9 https://na.bhs1.com/type-forklift-right-warehouse/

https://na.bhs1.com/type-forklift-right-warehouse/


4.1.5 Quality of Fuel

Occasionally, higher hydrocarbons are accidentally mixed into LPG10

. For heating applications this is not known to be problematic, but in engines, the higher hydrocarbons can fail to gasify/ignite and thereby foul the motor. Anecdotal reports of this are known for Autogas in cars and for LPG in forklifts. Other contaminants can also contribute to lower quality of fuel resulting in engine problems. Engine failures lead to downtime, extra maintenance expense and customer irritation. A major forklift manufacturer has told a major forklift-LPG supplier that this contamination problem has lead the manufacturer to reduce its development work in LPG. As internal-combustion engines become more complex and more sensitive, their vulnerability to fuel contamination becomes greater. Fuel contamination can be controlled or even eliminated, by filtering and dosing of additives. One major forklift-LPG supplier has proposed the introduction of such a ‘premium-LPG’ for forklifts (and perhaps Autogas as well).

A key message is that the quality of LPG fuel needs to be well controlled and managed throughout the entire distribution chain, from production down to the end user, and any issues identified need to be immediately corrected.

10

Presumably this happens when a pipe or tank is used consecutively for middle distillate and LPG, but is not thoroughly cleaned between the two.


4.1.6 Propane Forklift Case Study

Propane Powers Overnite’s Forklift Fleet

As one of the nation’s leading less-than-truckload (LTL) transporters of palletized or skidded shipments,

Overnite Transportation Company understands the value of optimal performance in the warehouse. That is

why Overnite Transportation chooses to run propane-powered forklifts to meet its multi-shift requirements. Overnite Transportation has 1,835 forklifts in its fleet, with nearly 90 percent running on propane. The

company is in the process of shifting its entire fleet to propane after having evaluated all available forklift and

fuel options in the market. According to Dwayne Dagenhart, manager of operation services, the decision was made in part because

propane-powered lift trucks cost less than electric trucks. But propane’s overall operating cost and

productivity benefits sealed the deal – propane has a lower fuel cost, delivers greater performance and is easy

to switch out, resulting in increased productivity in the warehouse. Overnite’s Nissan JC40LP lift trucks operate

for more than twenty hours per day, far surpassing the eight hours of operating time of electric forklifts.

Overnite Transportation’s Forklift Fleet Facts

Fleet Type: Forklifts Fuels: Propane, electric, diesel Fleet Size: 1,835 LPG-fueled: 89.5%

The company began by replacing its diesel-powered lift trucks with propane. Now electric trucks in the fleet

are being phased out and replaced with propane. Although the company has a couple hundred non-propane

forklifts remaining, Dagenhart says that those lift trucks are on track to be replaced with propane-powered

forklifts. “The gain in productivity, uninterrupted operational capability and freeing up of valuable dock space

that was otherwise occupied by battery stations are reasons enough to make the switch from electric to

propane,” he said.

The Ideal Fuel for the Multi-Shift Warehouse Using propane has reduced the time Overnite forklift operators spend refuelling each lift truck – a critical performance factor for multi-shift operations. Replacing propane tanks is as simple as removing the empty tank and inserting a full one, with total refuelling time equalling ten minutes or less. “The easy switch-in and switch-out of propane tanks versus battery charging and re-charging had an immediate impact on our productivity and efficiency,” said Dagenhart.


Table 4: Comparison between Propane, CNG, Electric and Gasoline Forklifts

Propane’s constant rate of performance also means that Overnite no longer experiences the performance hits caused by lower battery power levels, a common occurrence with electric lift trucks. Overnite’s propane-powered forklift fleet gets the job done faster: the high torque output means forklift operators can push loads up to 4,000 pounds and accelerate faster. “Our warehouse personnel prefer propane because propane-powered forklifts don’t lose power like electric ones do,” said Dagenhart. “Propane keeps them moving.”

Typically, propane-powered

forklifts carry a 33-pound

propane tank, which can provide

up to eight hours of use.

Overnite’s cylinder exchange program with its fuel provider ensures that there is a steady supply of available

cylinders, with any additional fuel requirements serviced by an on-site cylinder filling station. According to

Dagenhart, propane infrastructure requirements are minimal, freeing up valuable warehouse space. Overnite usually negotiates a 3-year, fixed price contract with propane marketers to meet their propane fuel

requirements. In 2003, Overnite purchased 2.9 million gallons of propane to keep its fleet running smoothly.

Fleet Maintenance Forklifts are maintained in-house by Overnite’s employee mechanics who are trained by Nissan. Overnite

replaces its lift trucks every six to seven years to ensure an up-to-date, modern and efficient forklift fleet. “Our productivity and efficiency have increased substantially since our decision to switch to propane-

powered forklifts,” said Dagenhart. “We are pleased with our propane lift trucks and definitely recommend

using propane forklifts to other operators.” Overnite’s forklift fleet operates primarily indoors, and air quality is of prime importance. A non-toxic fuel,

propane burns cleanly and can be used safely indoors. Propane’s sealed, pressure-tight system eliminates the

toxic spillage and evaporative emissions found with gasoline and diesel refuelling, which can be a significant

source of secondary pollution. Propane also produces less carbon monoxide, particulate matter,

hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides than gasoline or diesel—helping Overnite to meet OSHA, EPA and local air

quality requirements. The propane industry is determined to ensure that propane-powered forklifts continue to meet national and

local emissions requirements. To this end, the industry sponsors Forklift Maintenance & Training Programs for

pre-2002 open-loop forklifts, supports several fuel quality and forklift equipment research grants, and is

funding a $1.39 million fuel systems technologies research project to guarantee that propane forklifts will be

able to comply with EPA 2007 emissions standards.


4.2 Marketing Findings

In examining cost/performance, several competitive issues have been identified that are more about marketing than cost/performance as such. These are reviewed in the following subsections.

4.2.1 Manufacturers’ and Dealers’ Electric Bias

It is impossible to overlook the preference of forklift manufacturers and dealers for electrics. Among manufacturers, Cat, Jungheinrich, Toyota and Yale recommend electric as the best choice for buyers. Various dealers do so as well (Table ) The obvious reason is that electrics typically cost half again as much as an LPG or diesel forklift. A less-obvious, additional reason is that battery suppliers often work closely with manufacturers and dealers in promotion, sales and service. Reportedly they offer rebates and package deals that lock customers into longer-term contracts.

4.2.2 Electrics Growing Presence, Innovation and Versatility

As noted above (Section 3.2.4), high demand for warehousing has boosted the forklift market share of electrics over the past 20-25 years. This has tipped some major users into going fully electric (many prefer a single-fuel fleet, rather than a mix of fuels). Walmart, one of the world’s largest retailers, previous used considerable amounts of LPG, but reportedly has shifted almost entirely over to electric. Presumably others have gone the same way. Meanwhile, in the past 5 years, electric cars have undergone a worldwide resurgence. The International Energy Agency recently predicted that electrics will make up 10-20% of the world’s passenger car fleet by 2030, up from less than 1% today. This combination of factors has massively boosted the presence of electric. Customers now know what it is, and they steadily hear good things about it (especially from many governments that heavily promote it). The huge interest has attracted a lot of innovation. Most of this is focused on on-road vehicles, but it surely does and will spill over into forklifts. The growth in warehousing, and innovation, have made electric forklifts far more versatile than LPG or diesel ones. Whereas LPG and diesel forklifts generally come in ‘plain vanilla’ style, electrics offer a wide range of specialist lifts for narrow aisles, tall aisles, double-stacking, rider-less and so on.

4.2.3 Electricity has a ‘Bundled’ Fuelling Package

In selling against LPG, electric power suppliers tend to have a built-in advantage. Almost always they are already supplying a warehouse or factory to power its lights and machines. They can bundle this with their supply for forklifts. This bundling opportunity is far less frequent for LPG.

4.2.4 Diesel on the Defensive

Diesel’s reputation has sunk dramatically in the past five years. In the 1990s and 2000s, diesel cars were welcomed, because they tend to be lower carbon and diesel fuel was in oversupply. In Europe, they rose from around 20% of the car fleet to around 60% today. Diesel is no longer in oversupply, and although still relatively low carbon, it is now recognised as an outsized emitter of NOx and particles. Both emissions can be abated, and sometimes are, but manufacturers of diesel


cars infamously decided to substitute cheating for abatement. Most notorious to date is Volkswagen; other major car-makers have been caught as well. Governments have reacted angrily. They have prosecuted the cheating, and they have also cracked down on diesel. Numerous European cities limit its usage, and several European governments plan to ban its usage entirely by 2030-2040. China aims to eliminate diesel (and gasoline) entirely, although its deadline is unclear. There is widespread public perception that diesel is a dirty, dangerous fuel.


4.3 Generalised Cost Comparison

To reach an authoritative, generalised finding, Atlantic Consulting conducted (for this report) in 2018 its own cost-comparison of electric, diesel and LPG forklifts. The comparison’s basis and findings are presented in the next two subsections.

4.3.1 Basis of the Comparison

Three publications were the main basis of the calculation. For capital and maintenance costs, the main source was by a manufacturer, (Cat Lift Trucks, 2011)

11, plus some alternate-scenario information from (Bailey, 2005).

Volumes of fuel consumption were taken from test results published by a leading forklift manufacturer (Jungheinrich, 2015a) (Jungheinrich, 2015b)

12. The Jungheinrich data are ideally suited to this comparison.

They compare forklifts using diesel, electricity and LPG that are otherwise almost completely identical. Each forklift is run through a standard test cycle, VDI 2198

13, specified by the Association of German Engineers (VDI),

that measures fuel consumption precisely. A detailed review of the Jungheinrich are presented in Section 5.3.1. Fuel prices were taken from public information and discussions with suppliers. One publication not used is a cost analysis by (Jungheinrich, 2007). It is an excellent, detailed analysis, but it lacks some transparency (e.g. fuel prices) and it very similar to the (Cat Lift Trucks, 2011) study – so we used the more recent study. Various websites publish titbits of cost data, but never enough to do a complete evaluation. The (Cat Lift Trucks, 2011) study is copied and/or cited in numerous other publications.

4.3.2 Findings of the Comparison

LPG can compete with electricity on costs and sometimes even beat it. This might surprise readers of the forklift literature, which suggest that electricity is always significantly lower in costs. Diesel and LPG costs are comparable in all cases. These findings are taken from three cost scenarios modelled for this study (Table ): a base case, a 2-shift/day case and a laggard-battery case, all with high- and low-fuel-price options. There are three key variables:

Battery cost, lifetime and recharge speed – in the base case, we have used the assumptions of (Cat Lift Trucks, 2011) that the up-to-date battery runs 1,500 hours in its lifetime and costs $8,750. In the laggard battery case, we have used the assumptions of (Bailey, 2005), who estimates battery lifetime at only 4,500 hours and cost at $4,000.

Fuel14

cost – highs and lows are shown, based on research and discussion with the industry. Intensity of operation, i.e. 1- or 2-shifts per day – the 2-shift/day case shortens the forklift lifetime to

four years. Two batteries are needed for electric lifts, which operate on a so-called ‘8-8-8’ cycle: eight hours of operation, eight hours of recharge and eight hours of cooling after recharge.

The comparison (Table ) can be summarised simply: if LPG fuel prices are low, then LPG full costs are competitive with those of electricity (and diesel). In the final row of the Table , the low-fuel-price scenario, lifetime costs are similar for all three fuel types. When fuel prices are high, however (in the penultimate row), lifetime costs differ significantly. The comparison in Table is presented graphically, by scenario (Figure 11, Figure 12, Figure 13).

11

Although the Cat study is clearly meant to promote electric over LPG forklifts, the analysis is objective. 12

Also available at http://www.jungheinrich.com/en/forklift-trucks-at-a-glance/counterbalance-trucks/dfgtfg-425s430s435s/ 13

http://www.vdi.eu/nc/guidelines/vdi_2198-typenblaetter_fuer_flurfoerderzeuge_/ 14

For simplicity’s sake, electricity is here considered a fuel

http://www.jungheinrich.com/en/forklift-trucks-at-a-glance/counterbalance-trucks/dfgtfg-425s430s435s/


http://www.vdi.eu/nc/guidelines/vdi_2198-typenblaetter_fuer_flurfoerderzeuge_/


Table 5: General cost comparison carried out for this report

ASSUMPTIONS BASE CASE 2-SHIFT/DAY CASE LAGGARD BATTERY CASE

Shifts/day 1 2 1

Hours/year 2,000 4,000 2,000

Days x shift hr 250 x 8 250 x 16 250 x 8

Lifetime hrs

Truck 15,000 15,000 15,000

Battery 10,500 21,000 4,500

Batteries/truck 1 2 1

Charger 1 1 1

Truck lifetime, yrs 7.5

4 7.5

CAPITAL, US $ Electric LPG Diesel Electric LPG Diesel Electric LPG Diesel

Truck 37,100 31,900 34,300 37,100 31,900 34,300 37,100 31,900 34,300

Battery 8,750 0 0 17,500 0 0 4,000 0 0

Charger 3,250 0 0 3,250 0 0 3,250 0 0

MAINTENANCE, US $/year Electric LPG Diesel Same as base case Same as base case

2,700 3,300 3,300

FUEL PRICES $ Unit Same as base case Same as base case

Electric

high 0.18 kWh

low 0.05 kWh

LPG equivalent prices in other units

high 2.5 gallon 0.66 litre 0.10 kWh

low 1.2 gallon 0.33 litre 0.05 kWh

Diesel equivalent prices in other units

high 4 gallon 1.06 litre 0.11 kWh

low 1.5 gallon 0.4 litre 0.04 kWh

FUEL CONSUMPTION Electric LPG Diesel Electric LPG Diesel Electric LPG Diesel

kWh/hr 6.4 33.4 29.9 6.4 33.4 29.9 6.4 33.4 29.9

kWh/yr 12,800 66,871 59,765 25,600 133,743 119,531 12,800 66,871 59,765

$/year, high 2,304 6,801 6,340 18,432 54,407 50,721 2,304 6,801 6,340

$/year, low 640 3,264 2,378 5,120 26,115 19,020 640 3,264 2,378

FULL COST, $/Lifetime Electric LPG Diesel Electric LPG Diesel Electric LPG Diesel

Capital 52,850 31,900 34,300 56,373 31,900 34,300 53,683 31,900 34,300

Maintenance 20,250 24,750 24,750 10,800 13,200 13,200 20,250 24,750 24,750

Fuel high 17,280 51,006 47,551 18,432 54,407 50,721 17,280 51,006 47,551

Fuel low 4,800 24,483 17,832 5,120 26,115 19,020 4,800 24,483 17,832

Full cost high 90,380 107,656 106,601 85,605 99,507 98,221 91,213 107,656 106,601

Full cost low 77,900 81,133 76,882 72,293 71,215 66,520 78,733 81,133 76,882


Figure 11: Cost comparison of forklift types, base case

Figure 12: Cost comparison of forklift types, 2-shift/day case

Figure 13: Cost comparison of forklift types, laggard battery case


4.4 Sources of Information

There were two main sources of the above information in this chapter:

Discussions with industry experts;

Literature sources.

Several LPG distributors nominated forklift experts to discuss this chapter’s topics with Atlantic Consulting. Their combined experience totals to some 100 years in the industry. The experts’ opinions were consensual – there was no disagreement, albeit slight differences in focus. Below a detailed list of published literature sources used in this chapter


4.4.1 Literature Sources

Table 6: Published sources for the performance/cost comparison

Reference Content Name Link

Sponsor/author Year LPG Diesel Electricity

Int Comb Other Comment

1

Cost calculator

Lift Truck Comparison with Capital Costs

http://et.epri.com/Calculators_LiftTruckComparison_with_cap2.html

EPRI mid 1990s?

1 1 1

25 years old?

2

Cost comparison

The Case for Choosing 3-Phase AC Electric Forklift Trucks Over Vehicles Based on DC Electric, Internal Combustion or Diesel Technologies

https://www.automation.com/pdf_articles/JungheinrichWhitePaper.pdf

Forklift manufacturer: Jungheinrich

2007 1

1

1

Solid comparison

3

Cost comparison

Electric vs LP Gas Lift Truck: Cost comparison

http://www.ldbailey.com/old/tools/WP%20Electric%20v%20LP%20Gas.pdf

LD Bailey 2005 1

1

Focus on recharge efficiency

4

Cost comparison

Choosing Electric (AC) Lift Trucks Over Internal Combustion (IC)

http://www.distributiongroup.com/articles/1111DCwebextra.pdf

Forklift manufacturer: Cat Lift Trucks

2012 1 1 1

Solid comparison

5

Cost comparison

LPG VS. Battery Electric Forklifts

http://www.aalhysterforklifts.com.au/index.php/about/blog-post/lpg_vs._electric_forklifts

Forklift dealer 2012 1

1

Not original. Taken from Cat study

6 Cost comparison

Electric lift trucks not available on Internet Duke Power 2005? 1 1 1

Gasoline

Solid comparison

7

Cost comparison

The Truth About Electric Lift Trucks: Environmental and Economic Benefits

https://www.google.ch/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=2ahUKEwj8t8nF05HdAhWQblAKHdneDgcQFjAAegQICBAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.yale.com%2FWorkArea%2FDownloadAsset.aspx%3Fid%3D4294967722&usg=AOvVaw2XvFwcISumLEH33JkKbBgW

Forklift manufacturer: Yale

2010 1

1

Quantitative data taken from EPRI study




















8

Pros and cons comparison

Lift trucks with AC drive technology replacing conventional IC engine models

https://www.plantservices.com/industrynews/2005/185/


2005

1 1

9


Electric Forklift versus Internal Combustion Forklift Comparison Guide

http://www.liftsrus.com/InfoDocs/Forklift_Comparison_Guide.html

Forklift dealer 2005

1 1

10


Should You Buy an LP Forklift or an Electric Forklift?

https://www.tmhnc.com/blog/buy-propane-lp-forklift-versus-electric-forklift

Forklift manufacturer: Toyota

2017 1

1

11


Electric v Diesel or LPG / Gas? What Power should I choose for my Forklift?

http://www.bendigomitchell.com/kb/forklift-power

Forklift dealer 2014?

12


Propane Powers Overnite’s Forklift Fleet

http://www.edproenergy.com/solutions/forklift/CaseStudyNPGA.pdf

PERC 2004 1

13


Forklifts

https://www.cooperative.com/programs-services/bts/documents/techsurveillance/tsbeneficialelectrificationforkliftssept2017.pdf

National Rural Electric Cooperative Association

2017

1

Summary of info presented elsewhere

14


Forklifts: Propane vs. Electric http://blog.wemanagepower.com/forklifts-propane-vs.-electric

Power-supply vendor

2015 1

1

Summary of info presented elsewhere

15


Cost of ownership considerations: electric vs ICE forklifts

https://www.forkliftaction.com/blogs/Cost-of-ownership-considerations-Electric-vs-ICE-Forklifts-5921.aspx


2008 1

1

1

Based on Jungheinrich study

16


Food industry https://na.bhs1.com/type-forklift-right-warehouse/

Electric equipment supplier

2016 1 1

1

17 Pros and Which forklift fuel? https://www.jofson.co.uk/whic Forklift dealer 2017



















http://blog.wemanagepower.com/forklifts-propane-vs.-electric

http://blog.wemanagepower.com/forklifts-propane-vs.-electric







https://www.jofson.co.uk/which-forklift-fuel/





cons comparison

h-forklift-fuel/

18


Breaking Down The Power Options

https://www.themhedajournal.org/2011/07/22/breaking-down-the-power-options/

Trade magazine

2011 1 1

1

19


No-, low-emissions lift trucks clear the air

https://www.thefabricator.com/article/materialshandling/no--low-emissions-lift-trucks-clear-the-air

Trade magazine

2013 1

1

1

20

21 Capital costs

How much does a lift truck cost? A budgetary guide

https://raymondhandling.com/learn/faqs/how-much-does-lift-truck-cost/

Forklift dealer 2015 1 1

1

22

LPG maintenance costs

What Does Your Forklift Cost Per Hour?

http://cromer.com/blog/the-forklift-boss-blog/2016/10/07/what-does-your-forklift-cost-per-hour

Forklift dealer 2016 1

23

Electric developments

Making all the right moves https://www.foodengineeringmag.com/articles/90661-making-all-the-right-moves

Trade magazine

2013

1

24

LPG developments

Propane’s role in the forklift comeback

http://www.lpgasmagazine.com/propanes-role-in-the-forklift-comeback/

PERC 2018 1

25

Case study: switch from LPG to electric

From LP to Electric Lift Truck Conversion

https://www.posicharge.com/source/PDF/LPtoElectricWhitePaper.pdf

Electric charger manufacturer

2013 1

1

26

Case study: switch from LPG to electric

Electric Forklift Conversion Transforms Building Products Manufacturer

https://www.epri.com/#/pages/product/000000003002000292/?lang=en

EPRI 2013 1

1

27

Case study: switch from LPG to

Case study https://www.mmh.com/article/empire_merchants_north_exchanges_propane_for_electric_lift

Trade magazine

2017 1

1

https://www.jofson.co.uk/which-forklift-fuel/















https://www.foodengineeringmag.com/articles/90661-making-all-the-right-moves












https://www.mmh.com/article/empire_merchants_north_exchanges_propane_for_electric_lift_trucks







electric _trucks

28

CO emissions

Prevent carbon monoxide poisoning from forklifts

http://deohs.washington.edu/sites/default/files/images/general/CO_online.pdf

State of Washington, Dept of Labor

2005 1

1

Cost matrix on p 31






Chapter Five

Environmental Impact: LPG is Strong

Environmental impact is an increasingly important factor in forklift purchasing and regulation. It is generally accepted that a forklift’s fuel/energy type strongly influences its environmental impact. Environmental impact – in this context – is mainly understood to be carbon footprint (global warming impact). It can also include: emissions that influence local air quality and emissions that contaminate warehouse products. This is presented in the first subsection. About half a dozen comparisons of the environmental-impacts of forklifts, by fuel type, have been published in the past two decades. These are detailed and summarised in the second subsection below. Carbon footprints of electric forklifts vary from country to country, along with each country’s power-generation footprint. This is also detailed and summarised in the third subsection below. The fourth subsection looks at environmental innovation in forklifts.

5.1 Environmental Impact of Forklifts

The environmental impact of most interest to forklift users and regulators is that of global warming, also called climate change, which is measured as a so-called carbon footprint. A forklift’s carbon footprint is its contribution to global warming. Moreover, a carbon footprint is often a proxy for other environmental impacts, i.e. as carbon footprint increases, so do footprints/impacts in other areas. Another environmental impact sometimes assessed for forklifts is that of local air quality, usually defined as emissions of: carbon monoxide, nitric oxides, particle matter, sulphur dioxides and volatile organic compounds. These same emissions, if concentrated indoors, can also pose health hazards to warehouse workers. This threat is regulated under health and safety rules, and is not usually classified as an environmental impact. A final issue sometimes classified as environmental impact is that of battery disposal. Electric forklift batteries wear out, and their disposal can be environmentally damaging. However, recyclers are willing to pay for spent batteries, and in developed countries this recycling is regulated, so the incentive to wilfully dispose a battery in an improper way is insignificant.

5.2 Carbon footprint comparisons of forklifts

Through research and networking, 13 studies have been identified that assess (and usually compare) the environmental impact of forklifts (Table 7).


Table 7: Environmental assessments of forklifts

Author/sponsor Title Year Type Reference

Argonne National Laboratories (USA)

Full fuel-cycle comparison of forklift propulsion systems.

2008 Carbon footprint, electric vs internal-combustion

(Gaines, Elgowainy, & Wang, 2008)

Atlantic Consulting

Disagreement over carbon footprints: A comparison of electric and LPG forklifts

2008 Carbon footprint, electric vs LPG

(Johnson, 2008)

Daewoo et al Sustainable manufacturing: A case study of the forklift painting process

2010 Life cycle assessment of forklift painting

(Kim, Park, Hwang, & Park, 2010)

Energetics (for PERC)

LP Gas: An Energy Solution for a Low Carbon World: A comparative Analysis demonstrating the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Potential of LP Gas

2009 Carbon footprint, electric vs internal-combustion

(Energetics Inc, 2009) This supersedes a previous, similar report (Energetics, 2007)

Electric Power Research Institute

Lift Truck Comparison with Capital Costs

2000? Carbon footprint, diesel vs electric vs propane

https://et.epri.com/Calculators_LiftTruckComparison_with_cap2.html

Electric Power Research Institute

Environmental Assessment of a Full Electric Transportation Portfolio

2015-16

Emissions comparison of electric and internal-combustion vehicles, results not broken out in detail

(Electric Power Research Institute, 2016)

Gas Technology Institute (for PERC)

GHG and Criteria Pollutant Emissions Analysis

2016 Carbon footprint and NOx and SOx comparison, electric vs internal-combustion

(Gas Technology Institute, Leslie, & Rowley, 2016)

Linde and Fraunhofer Institut

Life-cycle assessments: Environmental performance in black and white

2014 Life cycle assessment of diesel, electric and LPG forklifts, but not a comparison of fuel types.

http://report.linde-mh.com/sustainability-report/2014/products/life-cycle-assessments.html

McGlinchey & Jaques (for PERC)

A Comprehensive Summary of Industrial Truck Engine Emission Data Compared by Fuel

2006 Comparison of carbon and some local-air-quality emissions, CNG vs LPG vs gasoline

(McGlinchey & Jaques, 2005)

Politecnico Bari Minimizing the carbon footprint of material handling equipment: Comparison of electric and LPG forklifts

2016 Carbon footprint, electric vs LPG

(Facchini et al., 2016)

Poznań University of Technology

An environmental life cycle assessment of forklift operation: a well-to-wheel analysis

2016 Life cycle assessment, diesel vs electric vs LPG

(Fuc et al., 2016)

Toyota Development of Environmentally Conscious Products

2001 Life cycle assessment, diesel vs electric

(Toyota & Konishi, 2001)

Yale The Truth about Electric Lift Trucks: Environmental and Economic Benefits

2010 Carbon footprint, electric vs propane

(Yale, 2010)






Six of the studies (Daewoo, both Electric Power Research Institute studies, Linde/Fraunhofer, McGlinchey & Jaques, and Yale) either do not make comparisons between fuels, or the comparisons are so unsubstantiated as to be meaningless. The remaining seven studies are comparisons of electric versus various combinations of internal-combustion forklifts, the latter including diesel, LPG, even compressed natural gas and gasoline. Six of those have been plotted (Figure 14) to show the comparisons. One of the remaining seven studies, (Fuc et al., 2016), has not been included in the plot, for two reasons. One, its results skew the scale so much that the other comparisons cannot be read properly. (Fuc et al., 2016) find the carbon footprint of LPG to be 13 times higher and diesel to be six times higher than that of electricity. Two, this result is absurd – wildly out of line with the others – and it is clearly flawed, featuring: massive variances in LPG consumption, LPG’s hydrocarbon emissions based on gasoline estimates from Poznan in 2002; and electricity consumption that does not change with load. Moreover, the sample of forklifts appears flawed, i.e. it is not representative.

Figure 14: Forklift footprints, by fuel, according to six studies (indexed to electric = 1)

What do the six plotted studies (Figure 14) tell us?

The carbon footprint of electric and LPG forklifts are relatively similar, but there is not a consistent ranking. In three studies electric is lower (Bari low-load

15, Energetics and Gas Technology Institute), in

one study LPG and electric are equal (Argonne) and in two studies LPG is lower (Atlantic and Bari high-load).

Diesel’s footprint is higher than electric’s in four studies and higher than LPG’s in three. The studies do not deliver a clear answer to the question: ‘Which forklift fuel is lowest carbon?’ They are snapshots, in time and place, rather than an authoritative, generalised finding.

15

The Bari study tested forklifts in the range of 1,900-3,900 kg lift capacity. From 2,900-3,900 kg, i.e. high load, LPG forklifts are found to be lower carbon. From 1,900-2,900 kg, low load, electric forklifts are found to be lower carbon.


5.3 Carbon Footprint Comparison of LPG, Diesel and Electric, by Country

To reach an authoritative, generalised finding, Atlantic Consulting conducted (for this report) in 2018 another carbon-footprint comparison of electric, diesel and LPG forklifts. The comparison’s basis and findings are presented in the next two subsections.

5.3.1 Basis of the Comparison

In 2008 Atlantic Consulting published a peer-reviewed comparison of LPG and electric forklifts (Johnson, 2008) that has since been cited in the scientific literature 85 times

16 - by far the most scientific credibility in this topic. To update

the study, we pursued the same approach, but we refreshed the raw data, using test results published by a leading forklift manufacturer (Jungheinrich, 2015a) (Jungheinrich, 2015b)

17. The Jungheinrich data are ideally suited to this

comparison. They compare forklifts using diesel, electricity and LPG that are otherwise almost completely identical. Each forklift is run through a standard test cycle, VDI 2198

18, specified by the Association of German Engineers (VDI),

that measures fuel consumption precisely. In this ‘apples-to-applies’ comparison, electrics consume 23.0 MJ of energy per hour, about one-fifth the energy that LPG or diesel forklifts consume to do the same operations (Table ). Over the past decade, electrics have become dramatically more efficient. Presumably this is due to the efforts of Tesla and the like in developing battery-electric cars

19.

Table 8: Jungheinrich efficiency comparison of electric, diesel and LPG forklifts

Fuel/energy type

Forklift feature Electric Diesel LPG

Model EFG 425k DFG 425s TFG 425s

Capacity, t 2.5 2.5 2.5

Weight, kg 4,770 3,960 3,960

Battery wt, kg 1,540

Speed, km/h NA 19.6 19.6

VDI test results

Fuel quantity 6.4 3 2.6

Unit kWh/hr l/hr kg/hr

MJ/kWh 3.6

MJ LHV/l 35.8592

MJ LHV/kg 46.61

MJ LHV/hr 23.0 107.6 121.2

To convert this electricity consumption into carbon footprints, further efficiency factors were applied (Table ). Also an adjustment was made for production of the battery, which is highly carbon-intensive, using inputs from a study conducted for the UK Government (Atlantic Consulting, 2016).

16

https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=en&user=J4rsUqMAAAAJ&citation_for_view=J4rsUqMAAAAJ:2osOgNQ5qMEC 17

Also available at http://www.jungheinrich.com/en/forklift-trucks-at-a-glance/counterbalance-trucks/dfgtfg-425s430s435s/ 18

http://www.vdi.eu/nc/guidelines/vdi_2198-typenblaetter_fuer_flurfoerderzeuge_/ 19

See http://www.soci.org/chemistry-and-industry/cni-data/2017/4/electric-dream-revival

https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=en&user=J4rsUqMAAAAJ&citation_for_view=J4rsUqMAAAAJ:2osOgNQ5qMEC

https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=en&user=J4rsUqMAAAAJ&citation_for_view=J4rsUqMAAAAJ:2osOgNQ5qMEC



http://www.vdi.eu/nc/guidelines/vdi_2198-typenblaetter_fuer_flurfoerderzeuge_/

http://www.soci.org/chemistry-and-industry/cni-data/2017/4/electric-dream-revival


Table 9: Electricity efficiencies, well-to-wheel

Efficiency % Source

Power plant to plug 90% (ecoinvent, 2007)

Plug to battery 86.5% (Vermont Energy Investment Corporation, Sears, Roberts, & Glitman, 2014)

Battery-to-wheel 84.0% (Habermacher, 2011) (EMPA, 2010)

Power plant-to-wheel 65.4% Product of the above

This analysis does not consider the efficiency of ‘real-world’ recharging. As an analysis by (Bailey, 2005), a cost-accountant, shows, real-world inefficacies can be considerable, due to: overcharging, undercharging and improper battery maintenance. No ‘global’ figures are available for this loss of efficiency, and they are unlikely to become available, because few companies would be willing to report them. Still, they are well worth consideration in such comparisons. Diesel and LPG consumptions were converted to carbon footprints using standard well-to-wheel factors, respectively, of 89.4 and 72.0 g CO2e/MJ (lower heating value). These are global factors, varying only slightly from place to place.

5.3.2 Findings of the Comparison

Electricity footprints, at the power plant, vary dramatically, from lows under 10 g CO2e/kWh to well over 1,000. Grids with lots of hydro and nuclear (say, Sweden or Switzerland) have low footprints, while those with lots of coal (say, China or Poland) have high footprints. So this becomes the key factor in electricity’s competition with diesel and LPG. Using the above inputs, an electric forklift’s footprint has been plotted versus its electricity footprint at the plug (Figure 15). The footprint of an LPG forklift is at parity to the electric one when the plug footprint is 334 g CO2e/kWh; for diesel, parity is at 373 g CO2e/kWh.

Figure 15: Footprint comparison, according to the electricity footprint

In countries with electricity ‘at plug’ footprints higher than these, LPG or diesel or both are lower-carbon for forklifts. If at plug, footprints are less, then an electric forklift is lower-carbon. According to the electricity-generation footprints reported by the International Energy Agency (Table ), LPG forklifts are lower carbon than electric ones in countries accounting for at least half the world’s population.


Table 10: Electricity-generation footprints in major countries20

21

Country Footprint, g CO2/kWh

Australia 789

Austria 166

Belgium 199

Brazil 134

Canada 158

Chile 482

China 711

Czechia 516

European Union 337

France 64

Germany 486

India 791

Indonesia 761

Italy 343

Japan 572

Korea, S 536

Mexico 506

N Zealand 156

Netherlands 452

Norway 8

Poland 769

Russia 439

S Africa 926

Spain 247

Turkey 442

United Kingdom 459

USA 489

20

Reported by the International Energy Agency at http://www.compareyourcountry.org/climate-policies?cr=oecd&lg=en&page=2&visited=1 21

For countries in green, LPG forklifts are lower carbon than electric forklifts. Vice versa for those in red.

http://www.compareyourcountry.org/climate-policies?cr=oecd&lg=en&page=2&visited


5.4 Local Air Quality Comparisons

Of the environmental comparisons (Table 7), only a few address the issue of local air quality, and even those do not address it in a conclusive, meaningful way. Obviously, electric forklifts have no tailpipe emissions, while internal-combustion forklifts do. However, this does not mean that electric forklifts emit fewer local-air-pollutants on a full life-cycle basis. A recent study (Johnson, 2017) addressed the question: Do the pollutants emitted by power plants to fuel battery-electric cars outweigh those emitted from the supply chain and tailpipe of gasoline, diesel, and LPG? For the area studied, the United Kingdom, for ozone-precursor pollutants, the answer is yes. This would also be the case in countries with similar or ‘dirtier’ generating stations, say, China, Germany, India, and the United States. In the base-case UK, LPG comes out best: showing less than half the ozone impact of the battery-electric, gasoline comes out slightly higher, and diesel significantly higher than those first two, but still well below battery-electric

22.

The (Johnson, 2017) study was of cars, not forklifts. But general principles for forklifts are similar, as are the implications for local-air-quality rankings.

5.5 Environmental Innovation in Forklifts

From the perspective of forklift manufacturers, the increasing market penetration of electrics (at the expense of diesel and LPG) is an environmental innovation. Electrics are routinely hailed as ‘zero-emission’. Although Section 5.3 shows that LPG often can be lower-carbon than electricity, LPG as a forklift fuel is not generally seen as innovative. Aside from electric, there is some environmental innovation going on in forklifts:

For both diesel and LPG, newer models have increasingly stricter emission controls. In the USA, for instance, there is an ‘Ultra-Low Emissions Forklift Retrofit’ project being led by PERC. The aim is to develop an exhaust-emissions catalyst that converts pollutants to less-hazardous gases and can be retrofitted to existing forklifts. Retrofitted forklifts can then meet emissions regulations from the US Environmental Protection Agency and California’s Air Resources Board.

PERC is also leading a hybrid forklift project, which would pair an LPG engine with a re-chargeable battery that extends fuel economy and reduces emissions. Hybrids are of course already well-established in automobiles (e.g. the Toyota Prius), albeit with gasoline rather than LPG engines.

22

A less-technical summary is at https://sciencetrends.com/whats-unintended-consequence-electric-cars/


Chapter Six

Recommendations

LPG has a strong position in forklifts, but this is threatened. Pursuing the recommendations could boost LPG strengths and combat its threats.

6.1 Status

LPG has a solid position in industrial forklifts. It splits the internal-combustion forklift segment about equally with diesel, and this diesel sub-segment is vulnerable to penetration by LPG. At the same time, warehousing is growing about twice as fast as industry, and this is pushing the growth of electrics – not just in warehousing, but also in industry. LPG’s general sales pitch in forklifts could be something like this:

For all-round (industry) applications, LPG gives speed, strength and runtime at low environmental impact and competitive cost. Electric will struggle to deliver this in all-round applications, and diesel will stumble on indoor usage and on its reputation as a dirty, dangerous fuel.

There are other cost/performance factors (Table 3) that are of variable importance, depending on the customer. LPG is disadvantaged against electric in marketing. Manufacturers and dealers prefer the higher prices of electrics, and they are boosted by the rise of electric cars, which gives them a massive tailwind in publicity and innovation.

6.2 Recommendations

What should the industry do? In cost/performance, it should:

First, defend and consolidate its position in the industrial segment. This means refining and promoting the general sales pitch. Calculators for cost, carbon footprint and the other factors should be updated and delivered.

Second, go after the soft underbelly of diesel. Forklift users will be looking to switch, diesel will almost certainly lose market share, but this will have to be fought out between LPG and electric.

Third, continue to develop BioLPG, which will improve its environmental advantage even further. As a general rule-of-thumb, BioLPG cuts carbon emissions by around 75% (from fossil LPG), which will make it competitive even in areas where electricity footprints are low (Table 10). Distributors can also credit their BioLPG sales toward national targets for transport biofuels

[23].

[23] Calor has done this in the UK. Its sales of BioLPG for forklifts are counted in the UK’s obligations under the European Union’s Renewable Energy Directive, administered under the UK’s Renewable Transport Fuels Obligation.


Table 11: Recommended actions to defend and improve LPG’s position in forklifts

Recommendation

Market Actor

Industry Associations

LPG Distributors, Suppliers

Forklift Manufacturers

Government

Develop a cost calculator/comparison

Support Lead Cooperate --

Develop a carbon footprint calculator/comparison

Lead Support Cooperate Listen and promote

Promote LPG as a clean, easy replacement for diesel in forklifts

Lead Support Cooperate Listen and promote

Offer BioLPG as a lowest-carbon alternative

Lead long-term Lead short-term Listen Listen and promote

There are other issues that can be addressed, as seen in (Table 3) and raised at two industry summits organised by PERC (Propane Education and Research Council, 2017) (Propane Education and Research Council, 2018). It is not clear that any of these others are pan-industry issues; they seem to be more localised. Next comes a question that is broader than cost/performance: should LPG try to enter the warehousing forklift segment, where it is now almost completely absent? The answer is not obvious: this question should be studied further (it is beyond the scope of this report). This report does warn against an overhasty ‘yes’. LPG’s compet itive advantage in warehousing is not clear and perhaps does not exist. Chasing after it blindly would waste resources better spent on defending and consolidating LPG’s known strengths. Finally there is the question of marketing (which includes new-product development). LPG is traditionally hamstrung by the fragmentation of the industry itself. As one veteran marketer interviewed for this study puts it: “Even if we partner with a manufacturer to develop a better LPG engine, there is no guarantee that we will get the additional LPG sales coming from it.” Battery manufacturers, by contrast, are fewer and more differentiated in their technologies. The marketing job is one for LPG associations. Its first step is addressing the cost/performance issue, which will signal that the LPG industry is serious about staying strong in forklifts. Its second step is to increase interaction with the forklift manufacturers. As experience with Autogas and car manufacturers has shown, this is not easy – opening doors can be very hard. Finally, it probably means joint-development projects that are co-financed by the LPG industry. A good example here, in a different sector, is school buses in the USA. The LPG industry has played a key role

[24] in

commercialising LPG in this segment.

[24] See https://www.lpgasmagazine.com/exploring-the-rise-in-propane-school-bus-sales/


References

Atlantic Consulting. (2016). Electric versus LPG cars : an emissions comparison Part of a submission regarding the Alternative Fuel Framework.

Bailey, L. D. (2005). Electric vs LP Gas Lift Truck Cost Comparison. Cat Lift Trucks. (2011). Choosing Electric (AC) Lift Trucks Over Internal Combustion (IC). ecoinvent. (2007). LCIs of energy systems: results for current systems in Switzerland and other countries. Electric Power Research Institute. (2016). Environmental Assessment of a Full Electric Transportation Portfolio. EMPA. (2010). Vergleichende Ökobilanz individueller Mobilität: Elektromobilität versus konventionalle Mobilität mit

Bio- und fossilen Treibstoffen. St Gallen, Switzerland. Energetics. (2007). Propane reduces greenhouse gas emissions: A comparative analysis. Energetics Inc. (2009). LP Gas: An Energy Solution for a Low Carbon World: A comparative Analysis demonstrating the

Greenhouse Gas Reduction Potential of LP Gas. Facchini, F., Mummolo, G., Mossa, G., Digiesi, S., Boenzi, F., & Verriello, R. (2016). Minimizing the carbon footprint of

material handling equipment: Comparison of electric and LPG forklifts. Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management, 9(5), 1035–1046. http://doi.org/10.3926/jiem.2082

Fuc, P., Kurczewski, P., Lewandowska, A., Nowak, E., Selech, J., & Ziolkowski, A. (2016). An environmental life cycle assessment of forklift operation: a well-to-wheel analysis. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 1438–1451. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1104-y

Gaines, L. L., Elgowainy, A., & Wang, M. Q. (2008). Full fuel-cycle comparison of forklift propulsion systems. Gas Technology Institute, Leslie, N., & Rowley, P. (2016). GHG and Criteria Pollutant Emissions Analysis. Habermacher, F. (2011). Modeling Material Inventories and Environmental Impacts of Electric Passenger Cars. ETH

Zürich. Johnson, E. (2008). Disagreement over carbon footprints: A comparison of electric and LPG forklifts. Energy Policy,

36(4), 1569–1573. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.01.014 Johnson, E. (2017). Cars and ground-level ozone: how do fuels compare? European Transport Research Review, 9(4),

47. http://doi.org/10.1007/s12544-017-0263-7 Jungheinrich. (2007). The Case for Choosing 3-Phase AC Electric Forklift Trucks Over Vehicles Based on DC Electric ,

Internal Combustion. Jungheinrich. (2015a). DFG/TFG 425s/430s/435s Diesel & LPG Forklifts. Jungheinrich. (2015b). EFG 425k/425/430k/430/S30 Electric Forklifts. Kim, J., Park, K., Hwang, Y., & Park, I. (2010). Sustainable manufacturing: A case study of the forklift painting process.

International Journal of Production Research, 48(10), 3061–3078. http://doi.org/10.1080/00207540902791785 McGlinchey, W., & Jaques, I. (2005). A Comprehensive Summary of Industrial Truck Engine Emission Data Compared by

Fuel. Propane Education and Research Council. (2017). 2017 PROPANE FORKLIFT SUMMIT. Propane Education and Research Council. (2018). 2018 Propane Landscaping Market Development. State of Washington, D. of L. and I. (2005). Prevent carbon monoxide poisoning from forklifts. Toyota, & Konishi, M. (2001). Development of environmentally conscious products, 14–15. Vermont Energy Investment Corporation, Sears, J., Roberts, D., & Glitman, K. (2014). A comparison of electric vehicle

level 1 and level 2 charging efficiency. In IEEE Conference on Technologies for Sustainability 2014 (pp. 2012–2015). Portland, Oregon, USA.

Yale. (2010). The Truth About Electric Lift Trucks: Environmental and Economic Benefits.

Copyright © 2018 World LPG Association. All rights reserved. Neither this publication nor any part of it may be reproduced, stored in any retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publishers. All information in this report is verified to the best of the authors’ and publisher’s ability. They do not guarantee the accuracy of the data contained in the report and accept no responsibility for any consequence of their use.

Page 61 BioLPG: The Renewable Future

Documents

LPG for Forklift Trucks - wlpga.org · LPG for Forklift Trucks Page 8 Internal combustion engine trucks, Class 4 forklifts, use cushion tires designed to be used indoors on smooth