Dot 64460 DS1

Technology,
Sustainability, and
Marketing of Battery
Electric and Hydrogen
Fuel Cell Medium-Duty
and Heavy-Duty Trucks
and Buses in 2020-2040
A Research Report from the National Center
March 2020
for Sustainable Transportation
Andrew Burke, University of California, Davis

Anish Kumar Sinha, University of California, Davis
TECHNICAL REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE
1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No.
NCST-UCD-RR-20-09 N/A N/A
4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date
Technology, Sustainability, and Marketing of Battery Electric and Hydrogen Fuel Cell March 2020
Medium-Duty and Heavy-Duty Trucks and Buses in 2020-2040 6. Performing Organization Code
N/A
7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No.
Andrew Burke, PhD https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4245-0056 UCD-ITS-RR-20-26
Anish Kumar Sinha https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2027-3826
9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No.
University of California, Davis N/A
Institute of Transportation Studies 11. Contract or Grant No.
1605 Tilia Street, Suite #100 Caltrans 65A0686 Task Order 004
Davis, CA 95616 USDOT Grant 69A3551747114
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered
California Department of Transportation Final Report (December 2018 – February
Division of Research, Innovation and System Information, MS-83 2020)
1727 30th Street, Sacramento, CA 95816 14. Sponsoring Agency Code
USDOT OST-R
15. Supplementary Notes
DOI: https://doi.org/10.7922/G2H993FJ
16. Abstract
The objective of this study is to project the introduction of battery-electric and fuel cell technologies into the medium-duty and
heavy-duty vehicle markets and to identify which markets will be most suitable for each of technologies and the factors
(technical, economic, operational) which will be most critical to their successful introduction. The use of renewable energy
sources to generate electricity and produce hydrogen are key considerations of the analysis. The present status of the battery-
electric and hydrogen/fuel cell technologies are reviewed in detail and the futures of these technologies are projected. The
design and performance of various types of buses and trucks are described based on detailed simulations of the various
electrified vehicles. The total cost of ownership (TCO) of each bus/truck type were calculated using EXCEL spreadsheets and their
market prospects projected for 2020-2040. It was concluded that before any of the electrified vehicles can be cost competitive
with the corresponding diesel powered vehicle, the unit cost of batteries must be $80-100/kWh and the unit cost of the fuel cell
system must be $80-100/kW. The long term economics of battery-electric buses and trucks looks more favorable than that for
the fuel cell/hydrogen option if the range requirement (miles) for the vehicle can be met using batteries. This is primarily due to
the significantly lower energy operating cost ($/mi) using electricity than hydrogen.
17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement
Battery-electric vehicles, fuel cell vehicles, trucks, buses, No restrictions.
sustainable fueling, hydrogen storage and production
19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price
Unclassified Unclassified 63 N/A
Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized
About the National Center for Sustainable Transportation
The National Center for Sustainable Transportation is a consortium of leading universities
committed to advancing an environmentally sustainable transportation system through cutting-
edge research, direct policy engagement, and education of our future leaders. Consortium
members include: University of California, Davis; University of California, Riverside; University
of Southern California; California State University, Long Beach; Georgia Institute of Technology;
and University of Vermont. More information can be found at: ncst.ucdavis.edu.
Disclaimer
The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts
and the accuracy of the information presented herein. This document is disseminated in the
interest of information exchange. The report is funded, partially or entirely, by a grant from the
U.S. Department of Transportation’s University Transportation Centers Program and, partially
or entirely, by a grant from the State of California. However, the U.S. Government and the State
of California assume no liability for the contents or use thereof. Nor does the content
necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the U.S. Government or the State of
California. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. This report
does not constitute an endorsement by the California Department of Transportation of any
product described herein.
Acknowledgments
This study was funded, partially or entirely, by a grant from the National Center for Sustainable
Transportation (NCST), supported by the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) and the
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) through the University Transportation
Centers program. The authors would like to thank the NCST, the USDOT, and Caltrans for their
support of university-based research in transportation, and especially for the funding provided
in support of this project. In particular, the authors appreciate the assistance of Ms. Lee
Provost, the Caltrans Project Manager.
Technology, Sustainability, and Marketing
of Battery Electric and Hydrogen Fuel Cell
Medium-Duty and Heavy-Duty Trucks and
Buses in 2020-2040
A National Center for Sustainable Transportation Research Report
March 2020
Andrew Burke, Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis

Anish Kumar Sinha, Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis
[page intentionally left blank]
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................iv
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
2. Battery characteristics for use in buses and trucks .................................................................... 2
3. The characteristics of heavy-duty fuel cell systems for use in buses and trucks ....................... 6
4. The characteristics of hydrogen energy storage for buses and trucks ....................................... 9
4.1. Characteristics of presently available hydrogen storage technologies ............................... 9
4.2. Liquid Organic Hydrogen Carriers for hydrogen storage ................................................... 10
5. The characteristics of buses and various MD/HD trucks having specified ranges using
batteries and fuel cells. ................................................................................................................. 12
6. The design and operational characteristics of battery charging and hydrogen refueling
infrastructure for urban terminals and intercity stations............................................................. 19
6.1. Battery charging for Electric Transit Buses ........................................................................ 19
6.2. Production, storage, and dispensing hydrogen at an on-road station .............................. 24
6.3. Comparison of the costs of the hydrogen station and fast charger infrastructure .......... 27
7. Sustainable energy availability, greenhouse gas emissions, and economics ........................... 28
7.1. LCFS considerations ........................................................................................................... 28
7.2. Availability of renewable fuels and electricity ................................................................... 31
7.3. The economics (costs) of renewable fuels and electricity................................................. 33
8. The ownership costs of buses and various MD/HD trucks meeting user requirements .......... 36
9. The markets and prospects for the sale of battery-electric and hydrogen fuel cell buses and
trucks for 2020-2040. .................................................................................................................... 44
10. Conclusions ............................................................................................................................. 48
References .................................................................................................................................... 50
Data Management ........................................................................................................................ 52
i
List of Tables
Table 1. Characteristics of lithium batteries of various chemistries [2] ......................................... 2
Table 2. Comparison of the physical and working characteristics of the battery in light-duty and
heavy-duty vehicles .................................................................................................................. 3
Table 3. Characteristics of the Ballard 100 kW heavy-duty fuel cell system .................................. 6
Table 4. Hydrogen storage characteristics using several available technologies ......................... 10
Table 5. Hydrogen storage system goals using LOHC ................................................................... 11
Table 6. Road load characteristics of MD/HD buses and trucks ................................................... 12
Table 7. Energy use of battery-electric and fuel cell vehicles of various types on level ground.. 13
Table 8. The increase in energy consumption (Wh/mi) for city and highway driving on grades for
electric trucks of various types ............................................................................................... 14
Table 9. Battery pack characteristics for different cell energy densities ..................................... 15
Table 10. Fast charge tests of a LTO cell ....................................................................................... 19
Table 11. Fast charge tests of a NCM cell ..................................................................................... 20
Table 12. Estimated cost of a highway hydrogen refueling station for long-haul trucks............. 26
Table 13. Carbon intensity values for various fuels, electricity, and hydrogen from different
pathways of production 2017 [26] ......................................................................................... 29
Table 14. EER values for different vehicle types and alternative fuel/energy combinations [26] 30
Table 15. ERR values for trucks and transit buses based on UCD vehicle simulation results ...... 30
Table 16. Carbon intensities of renewable diesel from various bio-mass.................................... 32
Table 17. Electricity generated from solar and wind in 2018 in the United States and
California ................................................................................................................................. 33
Table 18. Levelized cost of energy from various sources and technologies ................................ 35
Table 19. Factors used in the vehicle design and economic spreadsheet models ....................... 38
Table 20. Summary of the economic model results for battery-electric trucks for different
battery costs ($/kWh)* ........................................................................................................... 45
Table 21. Summary of the economic model results for fuel cell trucks for different fuel cell costs
($/kW)* ................................................................................................................................... 46
ii
List of Figures
Figure 1. Microvast roadmap for battery development to 2022 ................................................... 4
Figure 2. Microvast cell and module products for trucks ............................................................... 5
Figure 3. The Ballard 100 kW heavy-duty fuel cell system [4] ........................................................ 6
Figure 4. Fuel cell efficiency curves ................................................................................................ 7
Figure 5. Fuel cell V vs. I curves ...................................................................................................... 8
Figure 6. Fuel cell cost projections [7] ............................................................................................ 8
Figure 7. The cryo-compressed gas storage unit being developed by BMW [8] ............................ 9
Figure 8. The Toyota/Mirai hydrogen storage unit [10] ............................................................... 10
Figure 9. Battery and fuel cell weights and volumes for the city delivery truck .......................... 16
Figure 10. Battery and fuel cell weights and volumes for the transit bus .................................... 17
Figure 11. Battery and fuel cell weights and volumes for the long haul truck. ............................ 18
Figure 12. Charging station for the Proterra Bus [20] .................................................................. 20
Figure 13. Charging model results for a city transit bus ............................................................... 21
Figure 14. Charging model results for a MD delivery truck .......................................................... 22
Figure 15. Production, storage, and dispensing hydrogen at an on-road station ........................ 23
Figure 16. Schematic of the hydrogen refueling station .............................................................. 25
Figure 17. Capital costs for the hydrogen refueling station [24] .................................................. 26
Figure 18. Bio-diesel production in the United States .................................................................. 31
Figure 19. U.S. annual renewable electricity generation 2008-2018 ........................................... 32
Figure 20. Recent production costs of bio-fuels from bio-mass [27] ........................................... 33
Figure 21. Estimated levelized cost of electricity from powerplants using various technologies
and energy sources in 2018 .................................................................................................... 34
Figure 22. Spreadsheet model output for the city delivery truck ................................................ 40
Figure 23. Spreadsheet model output for the transit bus ............................................................ 41
Figure 24. Spreadsheet model output for the HD Pickup truck ................................................... 42
Figure 25. Spreadsheet summary output for all the truck and bus types .................................... 43
iii
Technology, Sustainability, and Marketing of Battery
Electric and Hydrogen Fuel Cell Medium-Duty and Heavy-
Duty Trucks and Buses in 2020-2040
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The objective of this study was to project the introduction of battery-electric and fuel
cell/hydrogen technologies into the medium-duty (MD) and heavy-duty (HD) vehicle markets
and to identify which markets will be most suitable for each of technologies and the factors
(technical, economic, operational) which will be most critical to their successful introduction.
The study considered trucks and buses of various types—delivery vans, transit buses, intercity
buses, long haul and short haul tractor trailer trucks, and heavy-duty pickup trucks.
The initial sections of the report contain detailed reviews of lithium battery and PEM fuel cell
technologies and their application in the powertrains of trucks and buses. The fuel cell
technology review includes hydrogen storage as a high-pressure gas and a cyro-compressed
liquid and in liquid organic hydrogen carriers (LOHC). Efficient and cost–effective storage of the
hydrogen on–board the vehicles is critical to the marketing of fuel cell/hydrogen powered
trucks and buses.
In the next section of the report, the energy consumptions (Wh/mi and kgH 2/mi) for the trucks
of various types are calculated using the ADVISOR vehicle simulation program. Simulation
results were obtained for each truck type for several appropriate driving cycles. From the
energy consumption results, the battery (kWh) and hydrogen (kg) storage required were
calculated to meet specified ranges of the trucks and buses. The initial energy storage results
were for vehicle operation on level roads and it was determined that to account for operation
on grades and increased accessory loads, the energy storage required for a specified range
should be about doubled to provide that range with confidence in real world operation.
After determining the energy storage requirements, consideration was given to providing the
infrastructure needed to charge the batteries onboard the trucks and refueling the trucks with
hydrogen. The infrastructure at both truck/bus terminals and along highways were analyzed. In
the case of battery-electric buses, both fast charging the batteries along the city routes and
overnight charging at the bus terminal were considered. In the case of trucks powered by
hydrogen fuel cells, refueling along an interstate highway was analyzed utilizing an electrolyzer
connected to the grid to produce hydrogen on-site at large hydrogen refueling stations. These
stations could produce and dispense hydrogen at about $5/kg if the cost of the grid electricity
was $.1/kWh or less.
Sustainability aspects of fueling trucks and buses were discussed in terms of the Low Carbon
Fuel Standard (LCFS) being implemented in California. The LCFS is intended to fuel vehicles
using fuels produced from renewable resources having a low carbon intensity (gm CO2/MJ). For
the battery-electric and fuel cell/hydrogen trucks, this means refueling using primarily
iv
electricity from solar and wind resources directly to charge batteries or indirectly to produce
hydrogen using an electrolyzer. Both California and the United States are producing an
increasing fraction of their electricity from solar and wind and at costs approaching that of
electricity produced from natural gas. Hence there is reason to believe that when trucks and
buses using batteries and fuel cells are marketed, renewable (sustainable) electricity/hydrogen
will be available to fuel them. The future costs of the electricity and hydrogen at the present
time are uncertain.
The final sections of the report deal with the initial cost of the battery-electric and hydrogen
fuel cell trucks and buses and their ownership costs and the prospects for marketing the
electrified vehicles in 2020-2040. The initial purchase costs of the electrified vehicles depend
primarily on the unit costs ($/kWh and $/kW) of the batteries and fuel cell systems. The
operating cost ($/mi) of the vehicles depends primarily on the energy costs ($/kWh of
electricity and $/kg of hydrogen) and their reduced maintenance costs. In general, the
economic analyses indicate that none of the electrified trucks become cost competitive until
the battery and fuel cell costs decrease to the lowest values (70-100/kWh for batteries and $80-
100/kW for fuel cells) assumed in the calculations even for the relatively low electricity
($.10/kWh) and hydrogen ($5/kg) prices assumed. How soon the maturing technologies will
reach those cost values is uncertain, but it seems likely to occur in the next 10-20 years.
Even at the battery cost of $80/kWh, the long haul truck (300 miles), the short haul truck (150
miles) and the pickup truck (150 miles) would not be competitive with the diesel trucks.
Battery-electric vehicles of the other types would be cost competitive and their sales should be
promising as their initial costs approach those of the conventional diesel vehicles and the
energy costs ($/mi) of the battery-electric vehicles are less than the diesel vehicles. The
maintenance costs of the battery-electric were assumed to be one-half (1/2) the cost per mile
of the corresponding diesel truck.
In the case of the fuel cell-electric trucks and buses, the fuel cell costs required for the
electrified vehicles to become cost competitive were $80-100/kW. This is the cost of the
complete fuel cell system including all accessories to the vehicle manufacturer/assembler. It
does not include the cost of the hydrogen storage which was assumed to cost $ 200/kgH 2. For
the low fuel cell costs ($80-100/kW) and hydrogen at $5/k, the delivery van and buses are cost
competitive with the diesel both in terms of initial cost and TCO. Under these conditions, the
sales of the delivery vans and buses would be promising if the required infrastructure for
hydrogen is available. The economics of the long-haul trucks using fuel cells and hydrogen are
more promising than with batteries. First, the range of the fuel cell long haul truck has been
increased to 600 miles from 300 miles using batteries. Second, the cost of the tractor with the
low-cost fuel cell would be $156K compared to $227K with the batteries. However, the TCO of
the fuel cell/hydrogen truck ($.97/mi) for hydrogen at $5/kg would be higher than of the
battery-electric long-haul truck ($.71/mi). The TCO of the diesel truck is estimated to be
$.78/mi. Hence the marketability of the fuel cell truck would be dependent on the price of
hydrogen which would need to be less than $5/kg. The short haul truck (150 mile range) seems
to be best suited to be battery-electric unless the cost of hydrogen is well below $5/kg or the
v
price of electricity for truck companies is considerably higher than the $.10/kWh value assumed
in all the battery-electric economic calculations.
In summary, the long-term economics of battery-electric buses and trucks looks more favorable
than that for the fuel cell/hydrogen option if the range requirement (miles) for the truck can be
met using batteries. This is primarily due to the significantly lower energy operating cost ($/mi)
using electricity than hydrogen. The difference is, of course, dependent on the relative costs of
the electricity and hydrogen. The differences in the initial costs of the battery-electric and fuel
cell trucks depends on the range assumed for the respective vehicles. In general, the ranges of
the fuel cell vehicles can be greater than the battery-electric vehicles for the same initial cost. If
the energy costs are higher than assumed, the battery and fuel cell unit costs will have to be
lower than those discussed in this study for the electrified vehicles to be cost-competitive with
the diesel vehicles for the same diesel fuel cost.
vi
1. Introduction
The objective of this study is to project the introduction of battery electric and fuel cell
technologies into the MD/HD vehicle markets and to identify which markets will be most
suitable for each of technologies and the factors (technical, economic, operational) which will
be most critical to their successful introduction. The degree to which the markets will utilize
sustainable energy sources will be assessed.
The study was performed in terms of the following tasks.

Task 1: Projection of the characteristics of heavy-duty battery characteristics for use in
buses and trucks
Task 2: Projection of the characteristics of heavy-duty fuel cell systems for use in buses and
trucks
Task 3: Projection of the characteristics of hydrogen energy storage for buses and trucks
Task 4: Projections of the cost of buses and various MD/HD trucks having specified ranges
using batteries and fuel cells
Task 5: Summary of the design and operational characteristics of battery charging and
hydrogen refueling infrastructure for urban terminals and intercity stations
Task 6: Sustainable energy availability and economics
Task 7: Estimation of the ownership costs of buses and various MD/HD trucks meeting user
requirements
Task 8: Projection of the markets and prospects for the sale of battery powered and
hydrogen fuel cell buses and trucks for 2020-2040
1
2. Battery characteristics for use in buses and trucks
As indicated in Table 1 below, there are a number of lithium battery chemistry that could be
used in MD/HD vehicles. These are the same chemistry that can be used in light-duty vehicles.
In fact, for the most part, the same cells are used to assemble batteries for all the vehicles from
the smallest to the largest vehicles.
Table 1. Characteristics of lithium batteries of various chemistries [2]

Fast
Lithium Cost Power charge
battery type Wh/kg Wh/L Cycle life *$/kWh capability capability
NiCoMn 200-250 420-525 1000-2000 200-300 moderate Fair
(NCM)
LiFePO4 100-140 220-310 2000-3000 200-300 Low Good
(LFP)
LiTiOxide 45-100 85-190 10000-20000 400-500 High Excellent
(LTO)
*cost in 2016-2017, battery costs will lower in 2020 and beyond
One of the key questions to consider is whether it is appropriate to use the same lithium cells
for all the vehicle types. To investigate this question, it is instructive to compare the batteries
that would be used in a small vehicle like the Chevy Bolt with the battery for a HD short haul
truck. Both battery packs use the same 56 Ah NCM cell used in Bolt which are supplied by LG
Chem. The characteristics of the small battery pack (V, kWh, and kW) are the same as that in
the 2017 Bolt. In the case of the battery pack for the short haul truck, the battery stores 500
kWh and the truck has a maximum power of 320 kW. It is somewhat counter-intuitive that the
cells in the Bolt are more highly stressed (higher W/kg) than the cells in the short haul truck EV
during maximum effort accelerations requiring peak power from the battery. This is the case
because the battery in the HD truck is much larger and contains ten (10) times more cells.
Hence each cell in the larger battery does not work as hard. This is even true when the small
and large vehicles are traveling at 60 mph. Hence it appears that there should be no problem in
using the cells designed for use in the passenger cars in MD/HD trucks. In fact, it might be
appropriate to design special cells for use in the trucks that have lower power capability and as
a consequent can have higher energy density, longer life, and lower cost if manufactured in the
same quantities as the smaller cells used in cars.
One of the big differences shown in Table 2 is in the deep discharge cycles per year. The battery
in the Bolt will experience only 50 deep discharge cycles/yr while the battery in the short haul
truck will experience over 300 cycles/yr, because it will be deep discharged nearly every day.
Hence in terms of years, the cycle life of the battery in the truck will be shorter than in the
passenger car. The average power (W/kg) for the discharge of both batteries will be relatively
low.
2
Table 2. Comparison of the physical and working characteristics of the battery in light-duty
and heavy-duty vehicles
Heavy-duty vehicle
Parameter Light-duty vehicle (Bolt) (short haul truck EV)
Energy stored (kWh) 60 500
Pack voltage (V) 355 750
NCM Battery cell Ah (1.04 56 56
kg/cell)
Pack cell configuration 96s3p (288 cells) 192s13p (2500 cells)
Total weight of cells (kg) 300 2600
Cell energy density (Wh/kg) 200 200
Maximum Power (kW) 150 320
Power density (W/kg) 500 123
Miles per year 12000 40000-85000
Battery deep discharge 50 (250 Wh/mi) 360 (2.1 kWh/mi)
cycles/yr
Average power (kW; W/kg)
60 mph 15; 50 96; 37
City driving 5; 17 21; 8
The battery packs in the trucks will be much larger, have many more cells, and generate more
heat to remove. For that reason, the thermal management and battery management (BMS)
systems for the truck batteries will be more complex and expensive. The packaging of the large
batteries will also have to more robust as the physical environment (vibration, exposure to the
weather and road conditions) will be more extreme. Hence it appears that the same cells can
be used in the batteries for cars and trucks, but the surrounding packaging and monitoring will
be more demanding.
The work on this task has involved both testing of lithium-ion cells of various chemistries in the
UCD-ITS Battery Lab and detailed reviews of the literature concerned with present and
projected characteristics of lithium batteries. Testing has been completed for a A123 LiFePO4
cell, a LG Chem NCM cell, and a Toshiba LTO cell. One of the cell characteristics of particular
interest is the cell resistance and how that influences its pulse current capability. Battery
manufacturers often do not give information on the resistance of their cells. A paper was
presented at EVS 32 [33] that summarizes the results of our recent battery testing. It is
concerned with comparing the power capability of lithium batteries and supercapacitors.
Contact was made with Microvast [1], a battery manufacturer headquartered in Texas, but with
its engineering and manufacturing in China. Microvast has announced it will be building a large
facility in Texas to assemble large battery packs for trucks and busses. Microvast is the only
battery manufacturer in the world that specializes in batteries for trucks and buses. They design
and manufacture the cells and then assembly them into battery packs. Until the last few years,
Microvast has specialized in LTO batteries and emphasized fast charging applications. In more
3
recent years, Microvast has developed batteries with other chemistries than LTO. As indicated
in Figure 1, Microvast now has developed products with cell voltages and energy densities
similar to NCM like LG Chem. As indicated in Figure 2, their cells have a maximum voltage of
4.25V and an energy density of 225 Wh/kg, 650 Wh/L. This performance is as good as any other
manufacturer in the world and their battery modules and packs are designed for heavy-duty
applications. The cells are designed for pulse discharges up to 6C and charging up to 3C (20
minutes charge). The R&D road map from Microvast (Figure 1) shows a target of an energy
density of 350 Wh/kg, 800-1000 Wh/L and 3C fast charging by 2022. Hence Microvast intends
to have batteries available for trucks and buses with the same high energy density that the auto
industry hopes to have available for passenger cars.
Figure 1. Microvast roadmap for battery development to 2022
4
Figure 2. Microvast cell and module products for trucks
5
3. The characteristics of heavy-duty fuel cell systems for use in buses
and trucks
This section is concerned with the determining the characteristics of PEM (Proton Exchange
Membrane) fuel cells for MD/HD trucks and buses. The company that has been developing fuel
cell systems for those applications for several decades is Ballard in British Columbia, Canada.
The physical characteristics of the Ballard fuel cell systems—dimensions, weight, and power,
but not the operating characteristics like the V vs. I curve and system efficiency, are given in
their publications [3-6]. Information/data on the 100 kW Ballard fuel cell are given in Figure 3
and Table 3.
Figure 3. The Ballard 100 kW heavy-duty fuel cell system [4]
Table 3. Characteristics of the Ballard 100 kW heavy-duty fuel cell system

Component Weight kg Volume L kW/kg kW/L
Fuel cell module 285 528
Coolant system 44 148
Air subsystem 61 99
Total 390 775 .256 .129
6
Ballard is testing their fuel cells in buses around the world [5] and those tests show that the
Ballard fuel cells have excellent durability [6] of 25,000-30,000 hours in HD applications.
It is thought that the Ballard fuel cells have a maximum efficiency of 55-60%. Information on
the efficiency of the present generation of fuel cells is shown in the Figure 4.
Figure 4. Fuel cell efficiency curves
Note that the peak efficiency of the fuel cell is reached at a relatively low fraction of the
maximum power of the fuel cell, but the efficiency curve is relatively flat. The power shown of a
fuel cell is the net power after subtracting the power needed to operate the air system that
provides air (oxygen) to the cathode (positive electrode) of the fuel cells.
The basic operation of the fuel cell is given in terms of the V (voltage) vs. I (current density
A/cm2) curve shown in Figure 5. The curve on the left is a generaic V vs. I curve and the one on
the right is a V vs. I curve for an actual fuel cell. Note the large drop in the voltage for low
currents due to polarization effects primarily at the air cathode. The ideal voltage of the fuel
cell is about 1.2V and the initial voltage for present generation fuel cells is close to .9V. This
means that the maximum efficiency would be 75% if there were no other loses or auxiliary
loads. That is the reason the maximum efficiency occurs at a low power fraction. Progress in
reducing the polarization voltage drop has been very slow. Most of the progress has been in
reducing the Ohmic loses at the high currents by improving the solid/gel electrolyte between
the anode and cathode and the diffusion of the gases in those electrodes. In vehicles, the fuel
cell operates at power levels close to and higher than that for the maximum efficiency.
7
Figure 5. Fuel cell V vs. I curves
Much of the research on fuel cells in recent years has been to reduce their cost ($/kw). The DOE
has had an extensive study [7] of the projected cost of fuel cells for MD/HD vehicles that
indicates the cost of fuel cells will be reduced in future years by a large factor reaching about
$100/kW at production rates of 100,000 units/yr. (See Figure 6). Ballard has indicated that the
cost of $100/kW was a reasonable expectation in the long-term future.
Figure 6. Fuel cell cost projections [7]
8
4. The characteristics of hydrogen energy storage for buses and trucks
4.1. Characteristics of presently available hydrogen storage technologies
Sufficient hydrogen must be stored onboard the vehicle to meet the range requirement of the
vehicle. At the present time, nearly all fuel cell vehicles store the hydrogen as a compressed gas
at either 350 atm. (5000 psi) or 700 atm. (10000 psi). There has been consideration of storing
the hydrogen as a liquid at near 20 deg K at low pressure (<10 atm.) or as a liquid at about 50
deg K at high pressure (350 atm.). This later system is referred to as cryo-compressed hydrogen
storage (see Figure 7) and has been studied/developed by BMW and DOE/ANL [8,9]. The
present status of these various approaches to storing hydrogen are summarized in Figure 7 and
Table 4. Note in Table 4 that the Toyota hydrogen storage [10] system (see Figure 8) meets the
DOE targets for hydrogen storage in 2020. The cryo-compressed gas system seems to have a
significant advantage in weight compared to hydrogen storage at 700 atm., but not in volume.
Figure 7. The cryo-compressed gas storage unit being developed by BMW [8]
9
Figure 8. The Toyota/Mirai hydrogen storage unit [10]
Table 4. Hydrogen storage characteristics using several available technologies

Storage of Compressed Cryo-
25kgH2 gas (350 atm.) Toyota compressed
useable BMW (700 atm.) (350 atm) BMW DOE Goals
Weight (kg) 430 439 250
Volume (L) 1420 678 607
2020 ultimate
kgH2/kg .058 .057 .100 .055 .075
syst.
KgH2/L syst. .018 .037 .041 .04 .07
4.2. Liquid Organic Hydrogen Carriers for hydrogen storage

As shown in Table 4, only the cryo-compressed approach to hydrogen storage shows promise of
reaching the DOE volume goal for 2020 and none of the presently available technologies shows
promise of meeting the ultimate volume goal of .07 kg H2/Lsys . The only hydrogen storage
approach being developed which shows promise of significantly better performance than
gaseous storage at 700 atm (10000 psi) is storing hydrogen in a liquid organic hydrogen carrier
(LOHC) [11-15]. A wide range of lean hydrogen organic liquids [14,15] are being studied that can
reversibly store and release up to 7 wt. % of hydrogen. The hydrogenated liquid would be
10
stored in a tank like gasoline and be transported to the refueling stations like gasoline. Hence
the infrastructure for the LOHC fuel would be nearly the same as for gasoline. From the
literature, the goals shown in Table 5 are reasonable for the development of the LOHC
hydrogen storage system for vehicles.
Table 5. Hydrogen storage system goals using LOHC

H2 storage
Technology DOE ultimate LOHC 700 atm. gas
kgH2/kg syst. .075 .07-.10 .057
KgH2/L syst. .07 .06- .09 .037
At the present time, the R&D on LOHC systems are focused on identification and
characterization of the best organic carrier material and the catalyst needed for the
dehydrogenation (release of hydrogen) in the vehicle. Current research data [12] indicates
hydrogen wt.% of up to 10% may be possible in the relatively near-term. The dehydrogenation
process requires a temperature of 120-150 deg C and pressure less than atmospheric. R&D on a
dehydrogenation reactor for use in a vehicle has been started, but a reactor does not seem to
have been demonstrated in a vehicle [12,13] to date.
LOHC is a promising approach for hydrogen storage for both vehicle and grid applications, but it
is still relatively early in its development.
11
5. The characteristics of buses and various MD/HD trucks having
specified ranges using batteries and fuel cells.
This section involves the start of the development of detailed EXCEL spreadsheets to calculate
the characteristics and economics of the various types of electrified trucks and buses using
batteries and fuel cells, the capacity and cost of the infrastructure needed to refuel the
electrified vehicles both at a home base and on the road, projected markets for the ZEV
vehicles, and potential for the use of renewable fuels in the vehicles.
This task was concerned primarily with the determination of the design characteristics of the
vehicles and the powertrains for the trucks and buses of various types. The initial step in the
development of the spreadsheet is the determination of the vehicle characteristics and the
calculation of the vehicle energy consumption for various types of driving. The energy
consumption of the vehicles was calculated using a vehicle simulation program ADVISOR [16-
19] using the road load inputs given in Table 6. The energy consumption results are summarized
in Table 7. These energy consumption values will be used to calculate the kWh of electricity and
kg of hydrogen needed to meet the range requirements of the various vehicles. The ADVISOR
simulation results are consistent with the limited test data available for the various types of
MD/HD electric vehicles.
Table 6. Road load characteristics of MD/HD buses and trucks

Electric
motor CD/ WV Accessories
Vehicle type kW A m2 fr Kg kW
City Delivery
2030 125 .6 / 7.8 .007 6900 1.5
2050 125 .55 / 7.2 .006 6750 1.5
City transit bus
2030 250 .65 / 7.1 .0075 15000 6
2050 250 .55 / 7.1 .005 14000 6
Inter-city bus
2030 250 .6 / 7.7 .0075 15000 6
2050 250 .55 /7.2 .005 14000 6
Heavy-duty truck
(long- and short-haul)
2030 300 .55 /9.5 .0055 29500 1.5
2050 300 .45/ 9.5 .005 29000 1.5
HD pickup truck
2030 250 .41 / 3.1 .0075 3950 .8
2050 250 .40 / 3.1 .006 3875 .8
12
Table 7. Energy use of battery-electric and fuel cell vehicles of various types on level ground
Vehicle type *2030 2050
MD delivery truck (city)
Battery- powered (kWh/100 mi) 85 72
Fuel cell (kgH2 /100 mi) 5.6 5.2
Diesel mpg 10.5 12.5
Transit bus (city)
Fuel cell (kgH2 /100 mi) 9.6 9
Diesel mpg 6.5 7.3
Inter-city bus (highway)
Fuel cell (kgH2 /100 mi) 166 130
Diesel mpg 10.1 11.9
HD long-haul truck (highway)
Fuel cell (kgH2 /100 mi) .15
Diesel mpg 8.7 10.1
HD short-haul truck (city)
Fuel cell (kgH2 /100 mi) 12.9 11.6
Diesel mpg 8.2 9
HD pick-up truck (city)
*80% of battery capacity is used initially, 150 Wh/kg 2030, 225 Wh/kg 2050
The roads on which the vehicles will be traveling are not all level (flat). To investigate the effect
of grade on energy consumption, ADVISOR simulations have been made for the various types of
battery-electric trucks and for city and highway driving on roads with grades of .5 and 1%. The
results of the simulations are shown in Table 8. To include the effect of most small to modest
grades, a factor of 1.3 will be included in later calculations of energy requirements for specified
vehicle ranges to account for use on non-level roads. ADVISOR simulation results for the diesel
long haul truck indicated that their fuel economy decreased by about 45% on a 1% grade.
13
Table 8. The increase in energy consumption (Wh/mi) for city and highway driving on grades
for electric trucks of various types
Type of driving Truck type Long haul
and grade City delivery Transit bus truck HD pick up
City driving
0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
.5% 1.13* 1.2 1.24 1.19
1% 1.26 1.37 1.5 1.37
Highway driving
0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
.5% 1.23 1.15 1.39 1.25
1% 1.36 1.36 1.8 1.5
*Ratio = (Wh/mi)grade / (Wh/mi)0
It also is of interest to consider the effect of improved cell energy density on the weight and
volume of the battery pack especially compared to the weight of the tractor (3535 kg). The
effect of the cell energy density on the battery pack characteristics are shown Table 9. Even for
a cell energy density of 350Wh/kg, the weight of the battery pack (1200 kWh) for 500 miles on
level roads will be greater than that of the diesel-powered tractor. Lithium batteries with a cell
energy density of 350 Wh/kg will likely not be available for use in vehicles for at least 5 years.
14
Table 9. Battery pack characteristics for different cell energy densities
Cell energy
kWh stored density Cell weight Cell volume Pack weight* Pack volume**
in battery (Wh/kg/Wh/l) kg L kg L
100 kWh
148/320 676 313 811 422
225/495 444 202 533 273
350/770 286 130 343 176
400 kWh
148/320 2703 1250 3244 1688
225/495 1778 808 2134 1091
350/770 1143 519
800 kWh
148/320 5405 2500 6486 3375
225/495 3556 1616 4268 2182
350/770 2285 1039 2742 1403
1200 kWh
148/320 8108 3750 9730 5063
225/495 5333 2424 6400 3272
350/770 3423 1558 4108 2103
*Weight packaging factor 1.2
*Volume packaging factor 1.35
The vehicle spreadsheets developed can be used to quickly determine the effect of input
parameters such as vehicle range and battery energy density (Wh/kg) on the energy storage
requirements (electricity kWh and hydrogen kg) and the weight and volume of the battery and
the fuel cell for the various types of trucks. The output tables for the city delivery truck, transit
bus, and long-haul truck are shown in Tables 9–11.
15
Figure 9. Battery and fuel cell weights and volumes for the city delivery truck
16
Figure 10. Battery and fuel cell weights and volumes for the transit bus
17
Figure 11. Battery and fuel cell weights and volumes for the long haul truck.
18
6. The design and operational characteristics of battery charging and
hydrogen refueling infrastructure for urban terminals and intercity
stations
6.1. Battery charging for Electric Transit Buses
Most electric transit buses being sold in the United States have ranges of 100-200 miles and
battery packs that store 200-300 kWh of electrical energy. The batteries in these buses would in
most cases be recharged overnight in a bus depot. Another class of electric transit buses being
sold are intended to have the batteries recharged at selected locations along the route of the
bus in 5-10 minutes. The battery pack in these buses store only 50-110 kWh of energy and have
a range between battery recharges of 20-40 miles. The use of the smaller battery greatly
reduces the cost of the battery and the fast recharge of the battery at selected known locations
reduces any range anxiety of the bus company. The short-range buses use Lithium Titanate
Oxide (LTO) batteries and the long-range buses use Lithium Nickel Cobalt Manganese (NCM)
batteries. The LTO batteries have a relatively low energy density of about 100 Wh/kg, but very
long cycle life of over 10,000 cycles and the ability to accept very fast charge (several minutes)
without damage. The NCM batteries have a high energy density of 200-250 Wh/kg and a cycle
life of 1000-2000 cycles. The optimum charge time of the NCM battery is of one hour or longer.
Recent sales data for electric buses indicate that in the United States the transit agencies
strongly prefer the long-range buses and charge the batteries overnight at their terminal.
We have performed fast charge testing on both NCM and LTO cells. The results are shown Table
10 and Table 11. The LTO cell can clearly be recharge in 10 minutes or less. Note that for the
LTO batteries, the charge Ah to the maximum voltage (2.8V) changes only a small amount with
charge rate even for a 6C charge. This not the case for the NCM cell.
Table 10. Fast charge tests of a LTO cell

Charge Time Total Ah to
Charge Current minutes Ah to 2.8V charge time
1C 20A 60 18.8 19.47
2C 40A 30 17.71 18.8
3C 60A 20 17.32 18.7
4C 80A 15 16.92 18.5
5C 100A (3V) 12 17.05 18.8
6C 120A (3V) 10 18.1 19.4
19
Table 11. Fast charge tests of a NCM cell
Charge Time Total Ah to
Charge Current minutes Ah to 4.2V charge time
1C 3A 60 2.4 2.97
2C 6A 30 2.0 2.87
3C 9A 20 1.86 2.78
4C 12A 15 1.6 2.65
The on-route charging of a Proterra [20] is shown in Figure 12. The connection with the bus is
through an overhead pantograph that provides very high power (500 kW) to charge the battery
in 7 minutes.
Figure 12. Charging station for the Proterra Bus [20]
EXCEL spreadsheet models for the analysis of the economics of MD/HD trucks and buses
including the calculation of the cost of providing depot charging of the batteries have been
developed. The input parameters for the models include the following: number of vehicles in
the fleet, the average kWh needed to be charged, the average charging time, the period in
which the vehicles are charged, the cost of the chargers for different charging power (kW), and
the cost of the electricity including demand charges. The charging facility is assumed to consist
of low power chargers (50 kW) or a combination of both low and high-power chargers (50 kW
and 350 kW). The model calculates the capital cost of the charging facility, the charging power
and energy per day for charging, and the cost of the electricity for charging the vehicle fleet.
The model [21] can be run for one vehicle class (ex. Buses) or for the complete set of MD/HD
vehicles. Examples of the output sheets for the charger model for a city transit bus and a
delivery truck are shown in the Figure 13 and 14. The green shaded zones of the tables are the
charger power (kW) that are the best economic choices for the particular case being analyzed.
Also the input values in the green zone can be changed by the user and the table will
recalculate.
20
Infrastructure Capital Expenses
Max
Battery No of Charger Time to Number of vehicles No of Cost of Charging Charging
Charging No of Number of free hours Cost of one
Size vehicles in Power charge that can be charged on chargers charging Power/Day Energy/Day
Power ports to charge vehicles (hrs) charger ($)
(kWh) the fleet (kW) (hrs) one charger required infrastructure (kW) (kWh)
(kW)
200 50 50 2.07 0.25 10 1 40000 41 1652000 2065 20650
200 50 100 2.07 0.50 10 2 50000 21 1032500 2065 20650
200 50 150 2.07 0.75 10 4 65000 14 894833 2065 20650
413 200 50 250 2.07 1.25 10 6 80000 8 660800 2065 20650
200 50 350 2.07 1.75 10 8 100000 6 590000 2065 20650
200 50 500 2.07 2.50 10 12 150000 4 619500 2065 20650
200 50 1000 2.07 5.00 10 24 300000 2 619500 2065 20650
Operating Expenses
Charging Charging Energy Fixed Demand Energy Monthly
No. of Monthly Energy Monthly Demand Total Monthly Operating
Power/day Energy/day Charges Charges Charges Consumption Range (mi) Fleet Range
days Charges ($) Charges ($) Charges ($) Cost ($/mi)
(kW) (kWh) ($/kWh) ($/month) ($/kW) (kWh/mi) (mi)
30 2065 20650 0.15 100 15 92925 30975 124000 2.2 150 225273 0.55
Figure 13. Charging model results for a city transit bus
21
Infrastructure Capital Expenses
Max
Battery No of Charger Time to Number of vehicles No of Cost of Charging Charging
Charging No of Number of free hours Cost of one
Size vehicles in Power charge that can be charged on chargers charging Power/Day Energy/Day
Power ports to charge vehicles (hrs) charger ($)
(kWh) the fleet (kW) (hrs) one charger required infrastructure (kW) (kWh)
(kW)
100 50 50 1.56 0.50 10 3 40000 16 624000 780 7800
100 50 100 1.56 1.00 10 6 50000 8 390000 780 7800
100 50 150 1.56 1.50 10 10 65000 5 338000 780 7800
156 100 50 250 1.56 2.50 10 16 80000 3 249600 780 7800
100 50 350 1.56 3.50 10 22 100000 2 222857 780 7800
100 50 500 1.56 5.00 10 32 150000 2 234000 780 7800
100 50 1000 1.56 10.00 10 64 300000 1 234000 780 7800
Operating Expenses
Charging Charging Energy Fixed Demand Energy Monthly
No. of Monthly Energy Monthly Demand Total Monthly Operating
Power/day Energy/day Charges Charges Charges Consumption Range (mi) Fleet Range
days Charges ($) Charges ($) Charges ($) Cost ($/mi)
(kW) (kWh) ($/kWh) ($/month) ($/kW) (kWh/mi) (mi)
30 780 7800 0.15 100 15 35100 11700 46900 0.83 150 225542 0.21
Figure 14. Charging model results for a MD delivery truck
22
Figure 15. Production, storage, and dispensing hydrogen at an on-road station
23
6.2. Production, storage, and dispensing hydrogen at an on-road station
The long distance, long-haul trucks will store on-board hydrogen (70 kg) for a maximum range
of about 500 miles and will require refueling to complete their daily trip of up to 800 miles. The
refueling time for hydrogen will not be a problem—10-15 minutes at a rate of 5 kgH2/minute. It
is assumed that each of the stations along the 500 mile section of the highway will service on
average 1/10 of the 5000 trucks traveling along the highway. These calculations are for a busy
interstate highway, like Route I-5 between the Bay Area and Los Angeles, after the fuel cell
truck technologies are mature. They will indicate the volume of hydrogen needed and the
capital cost of providing it.
Each station will need to dispense 35000 kg (500 x 70) of hydrogen per day. It is further
assumed that the hydrogen will be produced onsite with an electrolyzer. If the electrolyzer has
an efficiency of 65%, the electricity from the grid required by the electrolyzer will be 1.166 x10 6
kWh (1166 MWh). If the electrolyzer operates 24 hr/day, the continuous power would be about
50 MW for each of the 10 stations along the 500 mile section of highway. Continuous operation
of the electrolyzer will require storage of about half of the hydrogen produced or about 17500
kg. This storage will be at a relatively low pressure (about 500-1000 psi). This is a very large
station. For the large amount of hydrogen required by this station, production of hydrogen on-
site is the most economical approach. Large stations using electrolyzers have been analyzed by
NREL in [22-24]. The components needed to control the flow of the hydrogen from production
to dispensing have been analyzed in NREL reports [23,24]. However, the magnitude of the daily
hydrogen dispensed in the stations being evaluated is more than an order of magnitude greater
than treated in the NREL studies. Hence estimates of the costs resulting from extrapolating
from the NREL results will be uncertain, but they should be enlightening for comparison with
economic estimates for fast charging stations for battery-electric heavy-duty trucks.
A schematic of the station is shown in Figure 16. The electrolyzer produces 1458 kgH2 /hr. For
purposes of the analysis, it is assumed that the hydrogen is dispensed to trucks during a 12
hour period. During the remainder of the day, the hydrogen is put into low pressure storage. It
is further assumed that the hydrogen needed to refuel the average number of trucks per hour
(50 trucks- 3500 kgH2) will be maintained in high pressure storage at 800 atm in order to fuel
trucks at 700 atm. As shown in Figure 16, the station will have both low- and high-pressure
compressor systems. To service, on average 50 trucks per hour, the station will need at least 15
dispensing hoses—20 hoses would be better to handle periods of high demand. The hose
systems would be designed to provide fueling at 5kgH 2/minute and have pre-cooling of -40C
[27]. The components to construct the hydrogen station outlined above are not currently
(2018) commercially available in the sizes needed. The cost data given in [23,24] have been
extrapolated to estimate the cost of the components needed in this station. For most of the
components, the costs used from [24] were those labeled “future” for 2025.
24
Figure 16. Schematic of the hydrogen refueling station
The costs of the components in the station are summarized in Table 12. The station is sized to
refuel trucks requiring 35,000 kgH2 per day at a pressure of 700 atm. It has been assumed that
every truck is fueled once each day (500 trucks per station) and that the fueling time is done in
10-15 minutes and there are 20 hoses per station. The total cost of the station is estimated to
be $75 million, which corresponds to $2127/ kgH2. As shown in Figure 17, this unit cost is
consistent with the results shown in [24]. The cost of electricity (assumed to be $.1/kWh) for
the refueling is $360 corresponding to $5.14/ kgH2. As indicated in Figure 17, the effect of the
fixed operating costs on the cost of the hydrogen will be small compared to the electricity costs.
25
Table 12. Estimated cost of a highway hydrogen refueling station for long-haul trucks
Component Unit cost Size parameter Cost
$million
Electrolyzer $800/kW 50 MW 40
Low pressure $725/kgH2 17500 kgH2 12.7
Storage
Low pressure compressor $700/ kgH2/hr 1500 kgH2/hr 1
High pressure $1000/ kgH2 3500 kgH2 3.5
Storage
High pressure compressor $2000/kgH2/hr 3500 kgH2/hr, 900 atm. 7
Dispenser hoses and pre- $430,000 for 3 5 kgH2/min., -40C 3
cooling hose unit 20 hoses
Total w/o installation $1900/kgH2 67

Total with installation $2127/ kgH2 75
Present value 177
(10%, 10 yr)
Electricity for hydrogen 70 kgH2 280 kWh .4/ kgH2

compression (4kWh/ kgH2) ($.10/kWh)
Electricity for producing 70 kgH2 3597 kWh $5.1/ kgH2
hydrogen by electrolyzer ($.10/kWh)
Figure 17. Capital costs for the hydrogen refueling station [24]
26
6.3. Comparison of the costs of the hydrogen station and fast charger
infrastructure
The range of the fuel cell powered trucks are about 500 miles and that of the battery-electric
trucks are about 300 miles. These ranges for the fuel cell and battery-electric trucks were
selected as later economic analyses in the report indicate they can become cost competitive
with diesel trucks for mature fuel cell and battery technologies. The refueling stations are
spaced so that either type of truck can be refueled conveniently. Both stations are sized to
handle 500 trucks per day accounting for the difference in refueling time—45 minutes for the
battery powered trucks and 10-15 minutes for the hydrogen fuel cell trucks. The capital cost per
station for refueling the hydrogen fuel cell trucks is estimated to be $75 million and that of the
battery-electric trucks to be $24 million [2, 25]. The size (MW) of the substation needed for the
hydrogen refueling would be 50 MW and for the fast charger station would be 60 MW. The
substation for the hydrogen refueling would operate continuously and that for the battery
trucks would be drawing power from the grid only during fast charging events. The fast charger
would use 555 kWh for each battery charge and the hydrogen station would use about 3900
kWh per hydrogen refueling. Hence the hydrogen stations are more costly and energy intensive
than the battery fast charging stations. The high capital cost of the hydrogen refueling stations
has a relatively small effect on the cost of the hydrogen ($/kg). Over ten years of dispensing
hydrogen at the station, the contribution of the capital cost would be only $.60/kg.
27
7. Sustainable energy availability, greenhouse gas emissions, and
economics
This section involves consideration of the availability of fuels and electricity from sustainable
sources, such as solar and wind for electricity and bio-mass for diesel fuel, and the greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions from the various fuel/energy sources. The GHG emissions will be discussed
in terms of the Low Carbon Fuel Standards (LCFS) [26]. The availability of sustainable energy
sources for battery-electric and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles is an important reason for
converting vehicles to operate on those powertrains.
7.1. LCFS considerations

The LCFS are expressed in terms of the carbon intensity (gmCO 2/ MJ) of the various
fuels/energy attained using the different pathways available for producing them. A summary of
the carbon intensities is shown in Table 13. Note that the carbon intensities vary over a wide
range. The GHG/CO2 emission reduction for a specific vehicle/fuel combination is given by the
following:
Delta (gmCO2/ mi) = (gmCO2/ kWh)D (kWh/mi)Dveh - (gmCO2/ kWh)altfuelveh (kWh/mi)altfuel
Substituting EER= (kWh/mi)D /(kWh/mi)altfuel , 1 kWh =3.6 MJ, and introducing $/tonne CO2,
($/kWh)altfuel = ((EER x (gmCO2/MJ)D – (gmCO2/MJ)altfuel) x 3.6 x10-6x ($/tonne CO2)
ERR is the energy efficiency ratio relating the energy use per mile of the vehicle using the
reference fuel/energy to the same vehicle using the alternative fuel/energy. Note from Table 14
that all cases using an electric driveline are significantly more efficient than using an
engine/transmission driveline [26]. The ERR value shown in the Table 14 for trucks and buses is
5.0.
Table 15 indicates that the value of 5.0 for ERR for delivery trucks and transit buses using diesel
engines is consistent with the UCD simulation results for battery-electric vehicles given in [30].
However, the EER value for electric long-haul trucks is much lower. The results for the
calculation of the ERR values for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are also shown in Table 15. The
values for ERR for the fuel cell vehicles are 2.2-2.6 much less than for the battery-electric
vehicles. This is the case because the maximum efficiency of the fuel cell is only marginally
higher than that of the diesel engine (50% compared to 42% for the diesel engine). Note from
Table 13 that the carbon intensity of hydrogen produced from natural gas or non-renewable
electricity is greater than diesel fuel (120-150 gCO2 /MJ for hydrogen and 90 gCO2 /MJ for
diesel). The effective carbon intensity of the hydrogen is not markedly less than diesel fuel for
an ERR value of 2.5 (135/2.5 = 54). Hence from the GHG point-of-view for trucks and buses,
battery-electric powertrains produce much less carbon than fuel cell vehicles unless the
hydrogen is produced from solar or wind electricity.
28
Table 13. Carbon intensity values for various fuels, electricity, and hydrogen from different
pathways of production 2017 [26]
29
Table 14. EER values for different vehicle types and alternative fuel/energy combinations [26]
Table 15. ERR values for trucks and transit buses based on UCD vehicle simulation results
Vehicle Delivery truck Transit bus Long haul truck
Diesel engine
Mpg 2017 2030 9.6-11 3.7-4.6 8.7-10.1
MJ/mi 2017 2030 14.0-12.2 36.4-29.2 15.4 -13.3
Battery-electric
kWh/mi 2017 2030 .83-.7 2.2-1.8 2.4 – 2.2
MJ/mi 2017 2030 2.99-2.52 7.92-6.48 8.6 – 7.9
ERR 2017 2030 4.68-4.76 4.6-4.51 1.79 – 1.68
Hydrogen fuel cell
kWh/mi 2030-2050 19.9-21.4 8.4-9.5 5.25
MJ/mi 2030-2050 6 - 5.6 14.2 – 12.6 7.14
ERR 2030 2.3 2.56 2.15
30
7.2. Availability of renewable fuels and electricity
The goal of the LCFS (Low Carbon Fuel Standard) program [26] is to replace fuels and electricity
produced from fossil energy sources with fuels and electricity from renewable sources with
much lower carbon intensity. The renewable energy sources are bio-mass and solar and wind-
based electricity. At the present time, bio-mass is utilized to produce bio-diesel fuel and the
renewable electricity can be used to charge the batteries in battery-electric vehicles and to
produce hydrogen using an electrolyzer.
The carbon intensity of bio-diesel (renewable diesel) is usually given in terms of direct CO 2
emissions from the collection and processing of the bio-mass and the indirect CO2 emissions
from changes in the land use of the ground where the bio-mass is grown. The direct and
indirect carbon intensities from renewable diesel from various bio-mass are shown in Table 16.
If the indirect GHG emissions from renewable diesel are included, the carbon intensity of
renewable diesel can be higher than regular diesel fuel. Even with this uncertainty in the carbon
intensity of renewable diesel (bio-mass based), the production of bio-diesel in the United States
has increased to nearly 2.6 billion gallons (3.5 x 105 MJ) in 2018. In 2016, California used 250
million gallons of renewable diesel fuel (7% of the total diesel).
Figure 18. Bio-diesel production in the United States
31
Table 16. Carbon intensities of renewable diesel from various bio-mass
Carbon intensity- Carbon intensity-
Bio-mass Direct indirect
Waste oils 10-20 0
Soy beans 50 29
Palm oil 55 71
canola 50 15
jatropha 32 NA
Rape seed 45 NA
The largest source of renewable energy is electricity from solar and wind. This is true for both
the United States and California. The rapid growth of the generation of renewable electricity in
the United States is shown in Figure 19. The renewable electricity generation in the United
States and California for 2018 are summarized in Table 17. Using 10% of the renewable
electricity in California in 2018, we could recharge about 55000 battery-electric trucks and
refuel 14000 fuel cell trucks assuming 50000 miles/yr and 1.5 kWh/mi for the battery-electric
truck and 12 mi/kgH2 for the fuel cell truck.
Figure 19. U.S. annual renewable electricity generation 2008-2018
32
Table 17. Electricity generated from solar and wind in 2018 in the United States and California
United States California
Total (GWh) 386 x103 41 x103
Solar (GWh) 100 x103 27 x103
Wind (GWh) 286 x103 14 x103
Total generated GWh 4100 x103 195 x103
7.3. The economics (costs) of renewable fuels and electricity

For ZEV and near-ZEV trucks at the present time, the renewable fuels include bio-diesel from
non-food crops having a low carbon intensity and hydrogen from renewable electricity. Ethanol
is a renewable fuel that is mixed (up to 15%) with gasoline on a commercial basis, but it is not
used primary to reduce GHG emissions of cars or trucks. The results of a recent study of the
costs of the renewable bio-fuels with low carbon intensity is given in [27]. It was found that the
cost of commercial bio- diesel was about $3.70/gge (gal. gasoline equivalent). The cost of
advanced bio-fuels processed from cellulosic bio-mass are not yet commercial and their cost is
much higher, being in the range of $4–8/gge depending on the bio-mass being used (see Figure
20).
Figure 20. Recent production costs of bio-fuels from bio-mass [27]
33
The Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) is a method of comparing the cost of different complex
energy technologies over their lifetime. It is the total life cycle cost of electricity for a given
technology divided by the total life cycle electricity produced, expressed as dollars per million
watt hours ($ per MWh). On a utility scale, the levelized cost of producing electricity from
powerplants of different technologies and energy sources are shown in Figure 21 and Table 18.
Figure 21 indicates that the levelized cost of electricity from conventional technologies/sources
(6-8 cents/kWh) is less than renewable sources except for land-based wind sources (8
cents/kWh). However, Table 18 indicates that the levelized cost of electricity produced from
both PV solar and land-based wind are about 6 cents/kWh, which is close to the cost of
electricity from combined cycle natural gas (5 cents/kWh). The latter costs of renewable
electricity are those most often quoted in the literature for the future. During periods in which
the generation of renewable electricity greatly exceeds that needed to meet total demand, the
price of electricity from solar or wind can be very low—1 to 2 cents/kWh or even lower. Hence
at any given time or place, the price of renewable electricity is uncertain.
Figure 21. Estimated levelized cost of electricity from powerplants using various technologies
and energy sources in 2018
34
Table 18. Levelized cost of energy from various sources and technologies
In California, there is a LCFS credit for low carbon fuels and electricity based on their carbon
intensity and the market price of carbon on the LCFS trading market. The LCFS credit can be
calculated from the following relationship:
LCFS credit ($/kWh) = ((CI)diesel x EER – (CI)elec.) x 3.6 x10-6 x ($/tonne CO2) (1)
For (CI)diesel = 90, (CI)elec = 10, ERR=5, $/tonne CO2 = 100, the LCFS credit = $.16/ kWh. LCFS credit
values calculated from Eq (1) agree closely with those given by the CARB LCFS Calculator
available on the internet. Note that the LCFS credit is quite sensitive to the EER value that can
value significantly with vehicle type (see Table 15). Since the LCFS credit can be quite large, it
should be considered in calculating the operating energy cost of the electrified vehicles.
35
8. The ownership costs of buses and various MD/HD trucks meeting
user requirements
This section is concerned with the determination of the ownership costs of the battery-electric
and hydrogen fuel cell trucks. The ownership costs depend on the initial purchase price of the
vehicles and their operating costs (energy and maintenance costs) and the depreciation of the
vehicle and the batteries in a specific time period (5 years in the present analysis). The method
used in the ownership analyzes are presented in detail in the following pages. This approach
has been used in previous cost studies [2,28-30].
The initial cost of the battery-electric trucks can be estimated as shown below.
(Vehcost)batelec. = glider + Electric drive component cost + battery cost
Glider = Price Diesel Vehicle – cost of engine and transmission of the diesel vehicle
Electric drive cost = $/kW x kW of EM x system integration factor
Battery cost = $/kWh x battery kWh x system integration factor
Battery kWh = (kWh/mi) on level x bat. oversize factor x minimum range requirement (miles)
The system integration factor is intended to account for the cost of integrating the component
into the vehicle and the overhead and profit associated with that component.
For the battery-electric vehicle, the estimation of the size of the battery (its kWh) for a specified
vehicle range is key to calculating the initial cost of the vehicles. The vehicle range is the
minimum dependable range of the vehicle for expected vehicle operating conditions—speed,
driving cycle, ambient temperature, and terrain—over the lifetime of the battery. Hence the
energy use of the vehicle (kWh/mi) used to calculate the energy storage requirement of battery
should not be the kWh/mi for a level road and near minimum accessory loads. In addition, the
battery sizing should include the effect of battery deterioration over its lifetime and some
margin to assure the battery has some remaining charge at the end of the day’s driving. These
considerations will result in oversizing the battery.
As discussed in Section 5, the average energy use should be increased by a factor of at least 1.3
to account for variations in road grade, traffic, and accessory loads. A second reason to oversize
the battery is due to battery degradation and the need to maximize the cycle life of battery. The
standard criteria for end-of-life of the battery is a loss of 20% in capacity (kWh). Hence to
maintain a constant range over the lifetime of the battery it will need to be oversized by 1/.8 or
by a factor of 1.25. Otherwise, it will be necessary to reduce the expected range of the electric
vehicle gradually as the battery ages. In addition, it is advisable not to discharge the oversized
battery to zero state-of charge (minimum cell voltage) at any time to maximize the range as the
battery degrades. This means limiting the maximum energy discharged from the battery to less
than 80% of that initially stored in the battery, which would result in an oversize factor of about
1.33. Otherwise, the battery cycle life will be less than projected by the manufacturer. The two
factors would result in a total oversize factor as high as 1.3 x1.33 =1.76.
36
For the hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, the initial vehicle cost is given by
(Vehcost)H2 FC. = glider + Electric drive cost + Power battery cost + fuel cell system cost
fuel cell cost = ($/kW x kW of fuel cell x integration factor
hydrogen storage cost = $/kgH2stored x kg stored H2 x integration factor
kg stored H2 = (kg/mi)on level x H2 oversize factor
fuel cell system cost = fuel cell cost + hydrogen storage cost
power battery cost =($/kWh)powerbat x (kwh)powerbat x integration factor
The ownership cost of the electric vehicles can be calculated for short periods like 5-7 years
which is typical for buyers of long haul trucks or for the lifetime of the vehicle (12-15 years)
which is more typical for fleet owned vehicles. In this study, the 5 year period was selected to
calculate the lifetime cost for two reasons. First, it is typical for first owners of long haul trucks
and second, it should not require a battery replacement, which adds an uncertainty to the truck
economics. In calculating the depreciated value of the battery-electric buses and trucks, it has
been assumed that the diesel and battery electric trucks are depreciated by 50% in the 5-year
time period being considered. In the case of the battery electric truck, the cost of the battery is
subtracted from the depreciated value of the truck and the battery is assumed to have
depreciated to 15% of its initial cost. Hence
Vehicle Deprecation5 years = .5 (Vehcost - battery cost) + .85 battery cost
In calculating the depreciated value of the fuel cell buses and trucks, it is assumed that the
diesel and fuel cell trucks are depreciated by 50% in the 5-year time period being considered.
The fuel cell system cost is subtracted from the fuel cell truck cost and the fuel cell cost is
depreciated by 50%.
Vehicle Deprecation5 years = .5 (Vehcost – fuel cell system cost) + .5 fuel cell cost
The costs of electricity and hydrogen per mile to operate the battery-electric and fuel cell
vehicles are
($/mi)elec = ($/kWh)elec x (kWh/mi)veh on level x (bat over energy use factor)
($/mi)H2FC = ($/kgH2) x (kgH2/mi)veh on level x (H2 over use factor)
It is expected that the maintenance cost of the electrified vehicles will be lower than that of the
baseline diesel vehicles they replace by a factor of MFR. The maintenance cost of the electrified
vehicles will be
($/mi)maint elec = ($/mi)maint diesel x (1- MFR)
In the 5-year period being considered, it is assumed the vehicles will operate a fixed miles per
year.
(miles traveled)5 years = 5yr. x (miles of operation/yr)
37
The total operating cost of the electric vehicles is
($/mi) = Vehicle Deprecation /(miles traveled) + ($/mi)elec + ($/mi)maint. elec
The corresponding relationship for the diesel truck is

($/mi)diesel = .5 Vehcost)diesel + ($/gal)diesel / (mpg)diesel + ($/mi)maint diesel
The payback miles for the electrified vehicles can be calculated from the following:
(payback miles) =(Vehcost) elec - Vehcost)diesel )/(($/mi)diesel fuel - ($/mi)elec) +
($/mi)maint diesel x MFRelec )
The factors used in the battery-electric and hydrogen fuel cell truck design and economic
analysis equations are given in Table 19. The payback miles calculation results in a positive
number only when the cost of the electrified vehicle is greater than that of the baseline diesel
powered vehicle.
Table 19. Factors used in the vehicle design and economic spreadsheet models
Parameter Battery-electric trucks Hydrogen fuel cell trucks
Integration factor 1.5-1.15 1.5-1.15
Bat/H2 storage over 1.8 1.6
size factor
Energy over use 1.3 1.3
factor
Vehicle depreciation .5 .5
factor
Energy storage .85 .5
depreciation factor
Maintenance .5 .5
reduction factor
Time period for 5 years (battery cycle 7 years (fuel cell stack life
economic analysis life 1500 cycles) 25000 hours)
It is of interest to calculate the number of deep discharge cycles the battery pack in the battery-
electric trucks would experience in the 5 year period of the economic analysis. The total
throughput for the battery in the electric truck in 5 years will be
(battery throughput)5 years = (miles traveled)5 years x (kWh/mi)lev x (bat over use factor)
The corresponding number of deep discharge cycles of the battery is

Battery deep discharge cycles = (battery throughput)5 years / (battery kWh)
The fuel cell stack life (hours) required for a long haul truck service life of 7 years is
(Fuel cell stack service life) 7 years = 7 yrs x 12 hr/day x 300 day/yr = 25200 hrs.
38
EXCEL spreadsheet models for the truck designs and related economic analyzes have been
written for various types of trucks and buses. The model treats the design and economics of
each type of truck separately and then summaries the economic results for all the truck types
on a separate spreadsheet for specific economic inputs for the design and components. The
vehicle design and economic spreadsheets showing inputs and outputs for the delivery truck,
transit bus, and the Pickup truck are shown in Figure 22-24 and the summary economic output
for all the truck types is shown Figure 25.
39
Figure 22. Spreadsheet model output for the city delivery truck
40
Figure 23. Spreadsheet model output for the transit bus
41
Figure 24. Spreadsheet model output for the HD Pickup truck
42
Figure 25. Spreadsheet summary output for all the truck and bus types
43
9. The markets and prospects for the sale of battery-electric and
hydrogen fuel cell buses and trucks for 2020-2040.
The results of the spreadsheet economic models for the various types of battery-electric and
fuel cell-electric buses and trucks can be used to project the prospects for sales of the various
vehicles in 2020-2040. The economic analyses of the electrified vehicles indicated that the main
driving forces for the sales prospects are the battery and fuel cell costs as those technologies
mature over the next 20-25 years and the energy costs for electricity ($/kWh) and hydrogen
($/kg) as they are produced from renewable sources. It will also be critical that the
infrastructure needed for both battery charging and hydrogen refueling be developed so that
electricity and hydrogen will be conveniently available at prices needed to make the economics
of the electrified buses and trucks competitive with the diesel-powered vehicles. The
economics of battery-electric and fuel cell-electric trucks of various types are summarized in
Table 20 and Table 21 for the battery and fuel cell cost driving factors. From the tables, the cost
factors that will make the electric trucks and buses competitive with the conventional diesel
vehicles are apparent for the various types of vehicles. The energy prices assumed in the
economic calculations were $.10 /kWh for electricity and $5/kg for hydrogen and $4/gal. for the
diesel fuel.
44
Table 20. Summary of the economic model results for battery-electric trucks for different
battery costs ($/kWh)*
Vehicle type Nom. Miles/yr. Battery Vehicle TCO $/mi Breakeven
Range cost cost($) for 5 yr. miles
(mi) ($/kWh)
City Delivery
Diesel 20000 55000 .97
Battery-electric 150 20000 200 102382 .94 110563
150 20000 100 62675 .63 17332
150 20000 70 55707 .58 1600
Transit Bus
Diesel 50000 400000 2.42
Battery-electric 150 50000 275 539453 2.10 168140
150 50000 150 442747 1.73 48716
150 50000 100 417082 1.64 19476
Intercity Bus
Diesel 60000 400000 2.14
350 60000 150 473006 1.52 86185
350 60000 100 437254 1.42 44000
Long Haul Tractor
Diesel 134000 134000 .78
Battery-electric 300 100000 275 585000 1.42 >106
300 100000 150 291595 .84 534637
300 100000 100 227081 .71 315771
Short Haul Tractor
Diesel 65000 119000 .86
150 65000 150 245229 .86 333509
150 65000 100 164641 .68 147321
HD pickup truck
Diesel 42000 .68
Battery-electric 150 24000 200 84403 .65 146139
150 24000 100 60459 .52 65077
150 24000 70 56837 .48 45290
45
Table 21. Summary of the economic model results for fuel cell trucks for different fuel cell
costs ($/kW)*
Vehicle type Nom. Miles/yr. Fuel cell Vehicle TCO $/mi Breakeven
Range cost cost ($) for 5 yr. miles
(mi) ($/kWh)
City Delivery
Diesel 20000 55000 .97
Fuel cell electric 150 20000 175 77386 .91 129807
150 20000 80 54855 .77 ------
Transit Bus
Diesel 50000 400000 2.42
Fuel cell electric 300 50000 250 456551 2.04 115085
300 50000 125 406592 1.90 12429
300 50000 100 400842 1.8 1588
Intercity Bus
Diesel 60000 400000 2.14
Fuel cell electric 500 60000 250 484735 2.39 ------
500 60000 125 421008 2.05 167273
500 60000 100 415258 2.04 121488
Long Haul Tractor
Diesel 134000 134000 .78
Fuel cell electric 600 100000 250 249900 1.32 -----
600 100000 125 165176 .98 ------
600 100000 100 157988 .97 ------
Short Haul Tractor
Diesel 65000 119000 .86
Fuel cell electric 150 65000 250 202112 1.24 -----
150 65000 125 142691 1.07 -----
150 65000 100 135503 1.06 ------
HD pickup truck
Diesel 42000 .68
Fuel cell electric 150 24000 175 84442 .68 248672
150 24000 80 658538 .56 87016
*hydrogen cost $5/kg
The primary measures of the competitiveness of the various electric vehicle options are the
purchase price differential of the electrified vehicles and their total ownership costs ($/mi) for
the first 5 years of operation compared to the conventional diesel vehicles. These cost values
are given in Table 20 and Table 21 for ranges of battery and fuel cell costs. The operating costs
($/mi) would be somewhat lower for a 15 year time period than for 5 year period.
In general, the results in the tables indicate that the electrified trucks do not become cost
competitive until the battery and fuel cell costs decrease to the lowest values assumed in the
46
calculations even for the relatively low electricity and hydrogen prices assumed. How soon the
maturing technologies will reach those cost values is uncertain, but it seems likely to occur in
the next 10-20 years.
In the case of the battery-electric buses and trucks, the battery costs [31, 32} required were
$80-100/kWh. This is the cost of the complete pack to the vehicle manufacturer/assembler.
Even at that battery cost, the long haul truck (300 miles), the short haul truck (150 miles) and
the pickup truck (150 miles) would not be competitive with the diesel trucks. Battery-electric
vehicles of the other types—buses and delivery trucks—would be cost competitive and their
sales should be promising as their initial costs approach those of the conventional diesel
vehicles and the energy costs ($/mi) of the battery-electric vehicles are less than the diesel
vehicles. The batteries in all the vehicles have been oversized for the specified vehicle range to
account for the uncertainty in energy use in real world travel which should make the vehicle
ranges more realistic. The maintenance costs of the battery-electric and fuel cell/hydrogen
trucks were assumed to be one-half (1/2) the cost per mile of the corresponding diesel truck.
Information on the maintenance costs of the various types of trucks is limited, but it seems to
be much higher for diesel transit buses than other types of HD vehicles.
In the case of the fuel cell-electric trucks and buses, the fuel cell costs [7] required were $80-
100/kW. This is the cost of the complete fuel cell system including all accessories to the vehicle
manufacturer/assembler. It does not include the cost of the hydrogen storage which was
assumed to cost $ 200/kgH2. For the low fuel cell costs ($80-100/kW) and hydrogen at $5/kg,
the delivery van and buses are cost competitive with the diesel both in terms of initial cost and
TCO. Under these conditions, the sales of the delivery vans and buses would be promising if the
required infrastructure for hydrogen is available. As in the case of batteries, the hydrogen
storage on-board the vehicles was oversized by 1.6 to account for uncertainties in energy
consumption.
The economics of the long haul trucks using fuel cells and hydrogen is more promising than
with batteries. First, the range of the fuel cell long haul truck has been increased to 600 miles
from 300 miles using batteries. Second the cost of the tractor with the low cost fuel cell would
be $156K compared to $227K with the batteries. However, the TCO of the fuel cell long haul
truck ($.97/mi) would be higher than that of the conventional diesel ($.78/mi) for hydrogen at
$5/kg. Hence the marketability of the fuel cell truck would be dependent on the price of
hydrogen which would need to be less than $5/kg. The short haul truck (150 mile range) seems
to be best suited to be battery-electric unless the cost of hydrogen is well below $5/kg or the
price of electricity for truck companies is considerably higher than the $.10/kWh value assumed
in all the battery-electric economic calculations.
The market situation for HD pickup trucks seems similar to that of short haul trucks in that at
$.1/kWh for electricity and $5/kg for hydrogen, the pickup trucks (150 mile range) seem best
suited to be battery-electric rather than fuel cell/hydrogen. The key factor is that for the energy
costs assumed, the operating energy cost of the battery-electric pickup truck, as is the case for
all the trucks, is much less than the corresponding fuel cell/hydrogen truck.
47
10. Conclusions
The objective of this study was to project the introduction of battery-electric and fuel
cell/hydrogen technologies into the medium-duty (MD) and heavy-duty (HD) vehicle markets
and to identify which markets will be most suitable for each of technologies and the factors
(technical, economic, operational) which will be most critical to their successful introduction.
The study considered trucks and buses of various types—delivery vans, transit buses, intercity
buses, long haul and short haul tractor trailer trucks, and heavy-duty pickup trucks.
Sustainability aspects of fueling trucks and buses were discussed in terms of the Low Carbon
Fuel Standard (LCFS) being implemented in California. The LCFS is intended to encourage
fueling vehicles using fuels produced from renewable resources having a low carbon intensity
(gm CO2/MJ). For the battery-electric and fuel cell/hydrogen trucks, this means refueling using
primarily electricity from solar and wind resources directly to charge batteries or indirectly to
produce hydrogen using an electrolyzer. There is reason to believe that when trucks and buses
using batteries and fuel cells are marketed, renewable (sustainable) electricity/hydrogen will be
available to fuel them.
The initial cost of the battery-electric and hydrogen fuel cell trucks and buses and their
ownership costs and the prospects for marketing the electrified vehicles in 2020-2040 were
evaluated using EXCEL spreadsheet models. The initial purchase costs of the electrified vehicles
depend primarily on the unit costs ($/kWh and $/kW) of the batteries and fuel cell systems. The
operating cost ($/mi) of the vehicles depends primarily on the energy costs ($/kWh of
electricity and $/kg of hydrogen) and their reduced maintenance costs. In general, the
economic analyses indicate that the electrified trucks do not become cost competitive until the
battery and fuel cell costs decrease to the lowest values (70-100/kWh for batteries and $80-
100/kW for fuel cells) assumed in the calculations even for the relatively low electricity
($.10/kWh) and hydrogen ($5/kg) prices assumed. How soon the maturing technologies will
reach those cost values is uncertain, but it seems likely to occur in the next 10-20 years.
Even at that battery cost of $80/kWh, the long haul truck (300 miles), the short haul truck (150
miles) and the pickup truck (150 miles) would not be competitive with the diesel trucks.
Battery-electric vehicles of the other types would be cost competitive and their sales should be
promising as their initial costs approach those of the conventional diesel vehicles and the
energy costs ($/mi) of the battery-electric vehicles are less than the diesel vehicles.
In the case of the fuel cell-electric trucks and buses, for fuel cell costs of $80-100/kW and
hydrogen at $5/kgH2, the delivery van and buses are cost competitive with the diesel both in
terms of initial cost and TCO. Under these conditions, the sales of the delivery vans and buses
would be promising if the required infrastructure for hydrogen is available. The economics of
the long haul trucks using fuel cells and hydrogen is more promising than with batteries. First
the range of the fuel cell long haul truck has been increased to 600 miles from 300 miles using
batteries. Second the cost of the tractor with the low cost fuel cell would be $156K compared
to $227K with the batteries. However, the TCO of the fuel cell/hydrogen truck ($.97/mi) for
hydrogen at $5/kg would be higher than of the battery-electric long haul truck ($.71/mi). The
48
TCO of the diesel truck is estimated to be $.78/mi. Hence the marketability of the fuel cell truck
would be dependent on the price of hydrogen which would need to be less than $5/kg. The
short haul truck (150 mile range) seems to be best suited to be battery-electric unless the cost
of hydrogen is well below $5/kg.
49
References
[1] Smarter Battery Solutions for Heavy Duty Electrical Vehicles, Microvast PowerPoint
presentation
[2] Burke, A.F., Miller, M., and Zhao, H., Fuel Cells and Batteries in Buses and MD/HD Trucks,
STEPS Report September 2018
[3] Ballard brochures available on the internet for their fuel cell systems
[4] Fuel Cell Electric Buses, An attractive value proposition for zero-emission transit for
California, Ballard report, 2019
[5] Fuel Cell Electric Buses, Proven performance and the way forward, Ballard report, January
2019
[6] Fuel System Development for Freight Transport Applications, Ballard report, August 2016
[7] James, B., 2018 Cost Projections of PEM Fuel Cell Systems for Automobiles and Medium-
duty Vehicles, DOE Fuel Cell Technologies office Webinar, April 25, 2018
[8] BMW Group, Cryo-Compressed Hydrogen Storage, Oxford, September 26, 2012,
presentation available on the internet
[9] Ahluwalia, Rajesh, Thanh Hua, J.-K Peng, S. Lasher, K. McKenney, J. Sinha, and Monterey
Gardiner. (2011). Technical assessment of cryo-compressed hydrogen storage tank systems
for automotive applications. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy. 35. 4171-4184.
10.1016/j.ijhydene.2010.02.074.
[10] Outline of the Mirai, Toyota, available on the internet
[11] Breakthrough for hydrogen fuel storage is like a “Liquid Battery”, Air Products and
Chemical, 2010
[12] Ahluwalia, Rajesh K., Thanh Q. Hua, J. K. Peng, M. Kromer, Stephen Lasher, Keith
McKenney, K. H. Law and Jayanti Prabha Sinha. (2011). Technical Assessment of Organic
Liquid Carrier Hydrogen Storage Systems for Automotive Applications. International
Journal of Hydrogen Energy. 36. 3037-3049. 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2010.11.090.
[13] Jensen, Craig, Brayton, Daniel, Jorgensen, Scott W., and Hou, Peter. (2017). Development
of a Practical Hydrogen Storage System Based on Liquid Organic Hydrogen Carriers and a
Homogeneous Catalyst. United States: N. p. doi:10.2172/1347919.
[14] Preuster, P., Papp, C., and Wasserscheid, P., Liquid Organic Hydrogen Carriers: Toward a
Hydrogen- Free Hydrogen Economy, Acc. Chem. Res. 2017, 50, 1, 74-85, American.
Chemical Society
[15] Jang, M., et al., A High Capacity, Reversible Liquid Organic Hydrogen Carrier: H2 Release
Properties and an Application to a Fuel Cell, ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. 2019, 7, 1, 1185-
1194
[16] Burke, A.F., Zhao, H., and Van Gelder, E., Simulated Performance of Alternative Hybrid-
Electric Powertrains in Vehicles on Various Driving Cycles, EVS-24, Stavanger, Norway, May
50
2009 (paper on the CD of the meeting)
[17] A.F. Burke and H. Zhao, Fuel economy Analysis of Medium/Heavy-duty Trucks- 2015-2050,
EVS30, October 2017
[18] Zhao, H., Burke, A.F., and Lin, Z., Analysis of Class 8 Hybrid-electric Truck Technologies
using Diesel, LNG, Electricity, and Hydrogen as the Fuel for Various Applications,
Proceedings of EVS27, Barcelona, Spain, November 2013
[19] H. Zhao and A.F. Burke, Modeling and Analysis of Plug-in Series-Parallel Hybrid Medium-
Duty Vehicles, paper at the European Electric Vehicle Conference, 2015, Report UCD-ITS-
RR-15-19
[20] Eudy, L. and Jeffers, M., Foothill Transit Battery Electric Bus Demonstration Results: Second
Report, NREL/TP-5400-67698, June 2017
[21] Elin, K., Charging infrastructure for electric city buses: Analysis of grid impact and costs,
KTH Report, 2016
[22] Park, G., and etals., Hydrogen Station Compression, Storage, and Dispensing- Technical
Status and Costs, Technical Report NREL/BK-6A-10-58564, May 2014
[23] Melaina, M. and Penev, M., Hydrogen Station Cost Estimates, Technical Report NREL/TP-
5400-56412, September 2013
[24] Elgowainy, A. and Reddi, K., Hydrogen Fueling Station Pre-cooling Analysis, 2015 DOE
Annual Merit Review, June 11, 2015
[25] Mareev, I., Becker, J., and Sauer, D.U., Battery dimensioning and life cycle costs analysis for
a heavy-duty truck considering the requirements of long-haul transportation, Energies
2018, 11, 55
[26] LCFS Rulemaking Documents-2015 Re-Adoption of the LCFS Program (February 19, 2015-
Hearing)
[27] Witcover, J. and Williams, R.B., Comparison of “Advanced” biofuel cost estimates: Trends
during the rollout of low carbon fuel policies, UC Davis-ITS paper, 2019
[28] Burke, A.F. and Miller, M., Zero-Emission Medium/Heavy Duty Truck Technology,
Marketing, and Policy Assessments for California, SB1 Report, UC Davis-ITS, 2018
[29] Miller, M. and Burke, A.F., Issues concerning the CARB ZEV Truck Mandate Proposal, UC
Davis-ITS paper, August 2019
[30] Burke, A.F. and Fulton, L., Analysis of advanced battery-electric long haul trucks: batteries,
performance, and economics, UC Davis –ITS Paper, May 2019
[31] Curry, C., Lithium Battery Costs and Markets, Bloomberg New Energy Finance presentation,
July 5, 2017
[32] Battery Cost for Heavy-Duty Electric Vehicles, CARB Report, August 2016
[33] Burke, A.F. and A.K. Sinha, Comparisons of the useable power characteristics of lithium
batteries and supercapacitors for vehicle applications, EVS 32, Lyon, France, May 2019
51
Data Management
Products of Research
Most of the data used in this study were generated during the course of the study using either
vehicle simulation programs that have been used at UC Davis over the last 10-15 years or EXCEL
spreadsheet models that were developed as part of the study. The results of the vehicle
simulations and the spreadsheet models are given in table form throughout the report.
Data Format and Content
The data are presented in the tables in the report in forms suitable to describe its proper
interpretation and understanding in each section of the report.
Data Access and Sharing

The EXCEL spreadsheet models are provided as part of the data sharing with the report and can
be used by anyone reading the report.
Reuse and Redistribution

The data used in the report are available to all readers. The same is true of the EXCEL
spreadsheet models are available in the dataset provided with the report.
52

Dot 64460 DS1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dot 64460 DS1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dot 64460 DS1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Technology,

Andrew Burke, University of California, Davis

Andrew Burke, Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis

The study was performed in terms of the following tasks.

Table 1. Characteristics of lithium batteries of various chemistries [2]

Figure 1. Microvast roadmap for battery development to 2022

Figure 3. The Ballard 100 kW heavy-duty fuel cell system [4]

Table 3. Characteristics of the Ballard 100 kW heavy-duty fuel cell system

Figure 4. Fuel cell efficiency curves

Figure 6. Fuel cell cost projections [7]

Table 4. Hydrogen storage characteristics using several available technologies

4.2. Liquid Organic Hydrogen Carriers for hydrogen storage

Table 5. Hydrogen storage system goals using LOHC

Table 6. Road load characteristics of MD/HD buses and trucks

Table 10. Fast charge tests of a LTO cell

Figure 12. Charging station for the Proterra Bus [20]

Figure 13. Charging model results for a city transit bus

Figure 14. Charging model results for a MD delivery truck

Total w/o installation $1900/kgH2 67

Electricity for hydrogen 70 kgH2 280 kWh .4/ kgH2

7.1. LCFS considerations

Delta (gmCO2/ mi) = (gmCO2/ kWh)D (kWh/mi)Dveh - (gmCO2/ kWh)altfuelveh (kWh/mi)altfuel

($/kWh)altfuel = ((EER x (gmCO2/MJ)D – (gmCO2/MJ)altfuel) x 3.6 x10-6x ($/tonne CO2)

Figure 18. Bio-diesel production in the United States

Figure 19. U.S. annual renewable electricity generation 2008-2018

7.3. The economics (costs) of renewable fuels and electricity

Figure 20. Recent production costs of bio-fuels from bio-mass [27]

The corresponding relationship for the diesel truck is

The corresponding number of deep discharge cycles of the battery is

Data Access and Sharing

Reuse and Redistribution

You might also like