UC Office of the President

ITS reports

Title
A Comparison of Zero-Emission Highway Trucking Technologies

Permalink
https://escholarship.org/uc/item/1584b5z9

Authors
Zhao, Hengbing, PhD
Wang, Qian
Fulton, Lewis, PhD
et al.

Publication Date
2018-10-18

DOI
10.7922/G2FQ9TS7

eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library

University of California
A Comparison of Zero-Emission
Highway Trucking Technologies
A Research Report from the University of California Institute of Transportation Studies

Hengbing Zhao, Formerly STEPS Program, University of California, Davis

Qian Wang, STEPS Program, University of California, Davis
Lewis Fulton, STEPS Program, University of California, Davis
Miguel Jaller, STEPS Program, University of California, Davis
Andrew Burke, STEPS Program, University of California, Davis
October 2018

PROJECT ID: UC-ITS-2017-50 | DOI:10.7922/G2FQ9TS7

 TECHNICAL REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No.

UC-ITS-2017-50 N/A N/A
4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date
A Comparison of Zero-Emission Highway Trucking Technologies October 2018
6. Performing Organization Code
ITS-Davis
7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No.
Hengbing Zhao Ph.D., Qian Wang Ph.D., Lewis Fulton Ph.D. https://orcid.org/0000- N/A
0001-8292-3420, Miguel Jaller Ph.D. https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4053-750X, and
Andrew Burke Ph.D. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4245-0056
9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No.
Institute of Transportation Studies, Davis N/A
1605 Tilia Street 11. Contract or Grant No.
Davis, CA 95616 UC-ITS-2017-50
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered
The University of California Institute of Transportation Studies Final Report (March 2017 – October
www.ucits.org 2018)
14. Sponsoring Agency Code
UC ITS
15. Supplementary Notes
DOI:10.7922/G2FQ9TS7
16. Abstract
Zero-emission long-haul trucking technologies are being developed that can play a critical role in achieving
California’s climate change goals and virtually eliminate air pollution from these vehicles. Hydrogen fuel-cell electric,
catenary electric and dynamic inductive charging technologies are being demonstrated in small scale projects
worldwide. In this study, these three zero-emission truck technologies were reviewed in detail and vehicle and
infrastructure challenges and costs for each of the technologies assessed. In the near- to mid-term, electrifying the
entire California state highway system or deploying large hydrogen stations at many statewide truck stops would
require very large capital costs, on the order of billions of dollars, even though, at least initially, there will likely be
relatively few zero-emission long-haul trucks in use. Considering technology readiness, energy efficiency, and capital
cost, the most feasible approach for the zero-emission technologies for long-haul trucks may be to deploy local or
regional catenary systems. Dynamic inductive charge systems could be introduced, though with perhaps more
disruption as roadways are prepared for this service. Hydrogen fuel cell trucks will benefit from some scalability but
will require large hydrogen refueling stations along highways. The initial “up-front” investment in infrastructure for
hydrogen trucks appears somewhat lower than for the other two options but the cost of providing hydrogen to
vehicles will be high, especially if provided using electrolysis. In the longer-term, all three of the technologies could
become economically competitive with diesel trucking, though this depends on many factors and uncertainties.

17. Keywords Zero-emission vehicle (ZEV), long-haul trucking, CO2 18. Distribution Statement
reduction, technology evaluation No restrictions.
19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price
Unclassified Unclassified 58 N/A
Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized
ABOUT THE UC ITS
The University of California Institute of Transportation Studies (UC ITS) is a network of faculty,
research and administrative staff, and students dedicated to advancing the state of the art in
transportation engineering, planning, and policy for the people of California. Established by the
Legislature in 1947, ITS has branches at UC Berkeley, UC Davis, UC Irvine, and UCLA.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study was made possible through funding received by the University of California Institute
of Transportation Studies from the State of California via the Public Transportation Account and
the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (Senate Bill 1). The authors would like to thank
the State of California for its support of university-based research, and especially for the
funding received for this project. The authors would also like to thank the Sustainable
Transportation Energy Pathways (STEPS) Program at the UC Davis Institute of Transportation
Studies for providing funding support for this project.

The authors would also like to thank the following individuals and organizations that provided
critical review: Ellen Greenberg (Caltrans), Philip Heirigs (Chevron), Tim Wallington (Ford), Ian
Sutherland (General Motors), Fabien Heurtaux (Renault), Serene Johnson and Matthew Tipper
(Shell), Patrik Akerman (Siemens), Cheryl Bynum, John Mikulin, Chris Ramig, and Lisa Snapp (US
Environmental Protection Agency), Pascal Amar and Sam McLaughlin (Volvo), and Sarah Flick
(Westport).

DISCLAIMER
The contents of this report reflect the views of the author(s), who are responsible for the facts
and the accuracy of the information presented herein. This document is disseminated under
the sponsorship of the State of California in the interest of information exchange. The State of
California assumes no liability for the contents or use thereof. Nor does the content necessarily
reflect the official views or policies of the State of California. This report does not constitute a
standard, specification, or regulation.
A Comparison of Zero-Emission Highway
Trucking Technologies
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORTATION STUDIES

October 2018

Hengbing Zhao, Formerly STEPS Program, University of California, Davis

Qian Wang, STEPS Program, University of California, Davis
Lewis Fulton, STEPS Program, University of California, Davis
Miguel Jaller, STEPS Program, University of California, Davis
Andrew Burke, STEPS Program, University of California, Davis
[page intentionally left blank]
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................... i
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
2. Traction Power and Energy Consumption of Long-Haul Trucks ................................................. 2
3. Inductive Charging Technology ................................................................................................... 5
3.1 Wireless Inductive Charging .................................................................................................. 5
3.2 Stationary Inductive Wireless Charging ................................................................................ 6
3.3 Dynamic Inductive Wireless Charging ................................................................................... 8
3.4 Cost ...................................................................................................................................... 14
3.5 Efficiency ............................................................................................................................. 15
3.6 Challenges ........................................................................................................................... 15
4. Catenary Electric Trucks ............................................................................................................ 16
4.1 Technology .......................................................................................................................... 16
4.2 Current Status...................................................................................................................... 16
4.3 Cost ...................................................................................................................................... 19
4.4 Challenges ........................................................................................................................... 20
5. Hydrogen Fuel Cell Electric Trucks ............................................................................................ 20
5.1 Technology .......................................................................................................................... 20
5.2 Current Status...................................................................................................................... 21
5.2 Cost ...................................................................................................................................... 24
5.6 Challenges ........................................................................................................................... 24
6. Comparison of Three Zero-Emission Highway Trucking Technologies ..................................... 26
6.1 Modeling Concerns and Inputs ........................................................................................... 26
6.2 Truck Capital Costs and O&M Expenses .............................................................................. 29
6.3 Infrastructure Capital and O&M Costs ................................................................................ 33
6.3.1 Catenary Infrastructure ................................................................................................ 33
6.3.2 Hydrogen Infrastructure ............................................................................................... 34
6.3.3 Infrastructure summary................................................................................................ 34
7. Results ....................................................................................................................................... 37
8. Sensitivity Analysis .................................................................................................................... 38
9. Conclusions ............................................................................................................................... 41
References .................................................................................................................................... 44
Figures
Figure 1.Typical Class 8 Freight Truck ............................................................................................. 1
Figure 2. Traction power and energy requirement of a typical Class 8 long-haul truck ................ 4
Figure 3. Wireless power transfer technologies: (a) traditional inductive power transfer, (b)
coupled magnetic resonance,and (c) strongly coupled magnetic resonance [Source: Qiu] .......... 6
Figure 4. Plugless Charging from Evatran [Source: www.pluglesspower.com] .............................. 7
Figure 5. Dynamic wireless charging schematic [Source: Highways England] ............................... 9
Figure 6. OLEV five 20-kW pick-up modules [Source: Shin] ......................................................... 10
Figure 7. Construction and operation of dynamic wireless charging [Source: Jang] ................... 12
Figure 8. Bombardier PRIMOVE dynamic inductive charging light rail [Source:
http://primove.bombardier.com]................................................................................................. 12
Figure 9. Swedish dynamic inductive charging test track system [Source: Sweden Viktoria ICT] 13
Figure 10.Electrified test track with PRIMOVE and Scania Truck [Source: Sweden Viktoria ICT] 14
Figure 11.Sweden’s catenary electric truck project [Source: www.scania.com] ......................... 17
Figure 12. Southern California eHighway project [Source: www.aqmd.gov] ............................... 19
Figure 13. Vision’s Tyrano plug-in fuel cell truck [Source: Vision Motor Corp] ............................ 22
Figure 14. Nikola One hydrogen fuel cell truck [Source: nikolamotor.com] ................................ 22
Figure 15. Nikola One drivetrain arrangement [Source: nikolamotor.com] ................................ 23
Figure 16. Scenario layout for partially electrified highway ......................................................... 27
Figure 17. Layout of hydrogen fueling stations ............................................................................ 28
Figure 18. Vehicle costs vary with road electrification coverage ................................................. 30
Figure 19. Infrastructure capital costs vary with road electrification coverage ........................... 35
Figure 20. Infrastructure O&M costs vary with road electrification coverage ............................. 35
Figure 21. Relative cost per mile of different technologies in the base scenario ........................ 38
Figure 22.Sensitivity analysis of cost ............................................................................................ 39
Figure 23.Sensitivity analysis of daily truck traffic. Daily truck traffic ranges from 1 thousand to
10 thousands ................................................................................................................................. 40

Tables
Table 1. Class 8 Truck Inputs (33,000 lbs – 80,000 lbs / 14,970 kg – 36,280 kg) ............................ 3
Table 2. Traction Power Request and Energy Consumption from Class 8 Trucks .......................... 4
Table 3. Specification and Performance Comparison of Tyrano and Nikola One ........................ 23
Table 4. Current Status of Hydrogen Storage Technologies [Source: Stetson] ............................ 25
Table 5. Model Assumptions......................................................................................................... 31
Table 6. Infrastructure Capital Cost for a 500-Mile Zero-Emission Highway Section................... 36
Executive Summary
Zero-emission long-haul trucking technologies are being developed that can play a critical role
in achieving California’s climate change goals and virtually eliminate air pollution from these
vehicles. Hydrogen fuel-cell electric, catenary electric and dynamic inductive charging
technologies are being demonstrated in small scale projects worldwide. In this study, these
three zero-emission truck technologies were reviewed in detail, and vehicle and infrastructure
challenges and costs for each of the technologies assessed, as summarized in Table ES-I. Vehicle
configurations for long-haul applications with a daily mileage of up to 500 miles and annual
mileage of 104,000 miles were analyzed to estimate vehicle capital and O&M costs. The results
of the study provide insights for both the near and longer term, though the cost estimates are
focused on longer-term possibilities, with estimates based on large scale deployment of
vehicles and energy infrastructure.
In the near- to mid-term, electrifying the entire California state highway system or deploying
large hydrogen stations at many statewide truck stops would require very large capital costs, on
the order of billions of dollars, even though, at least initially, there will likely be relatively few
zero-emission long-haul trucks in use. Low utilization will make it difficult to justify the high
investment costs. Considering technology readiness, energy efficiency, and capital cost, the
most feasible approach for the zero-emission technologies for trucks may be to deploy local or
regional catenary systems to be used by local/regional electric trucks that are equipped to
interface with overhead electric catenary lines, and with some driving range available outside of
this system. Dynamic inductive charge systems could be introduced, though with perhaps more
disruption as roadways are prepared for this service. There appear to be more technical
challenges for this technology than for catenaries, and more demonstration projects may be
needed to address these issues. Hydrogen fuel cell trucks and associated hydrogen
infrastructure will benefit from some scalability, but will require large hydrogen refueling
stations along highways, which may or may not be compatible with infrastructure for light-duty
fuel cell vehicles. The initial “up-front” investment in infrastructure for hydrogen trucks
appears somewhat lower than for the other two options but the cost of providing hydrogen to
vehicles will be high, especially if provided using electrolysis as considered in this study (to
ensure all technologies can eventually run on near-zero-emission electricity).
In the longer-term, all three of the technologies could become economically competitive with
diesel trucking, though this depends on many factors and uncertainties. Electrifying highways
becomes less economic, the higher the percentage of roads that are converted, so the
economics depends to some degree on the “autonomy” of trucks, i.e. their available driving
range off the system. Hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles will have the advantage of flexibility of driving
range in any direction once refueled. But their economics are highly dependent on lowering
the cost of fuel cell systems and hydrogen storage onboard the vehicle, and provision of cost-

i
competitive, probably liquefied hydrogen on-board the vehicles. All of these costs are likely to
be closely tied to scale and learning, and will take time to reach targets envisioned for them.
Table ES-1: Summary of Challenges and Costs of Three Zero-Emission Long-Haul Trucking
Technologies
Zero-Emission Long- Hydrogen Fuel Cell Catenary System Dynamic Inductive Charging
Haul Technology
• The durability status of current • Catenary technology is • This technology is in an early
automotive fuel cells is relatively mature. stage of development and long
approximately 10,000 hrs. at this Detecting and connecting/ term prospects and costs are
level, fuel cell stacks in long haul disconnecting overhead uncertain, but appear to similar
trucks would need to be replaced catenary wires at varying to catenary systems.
every 3-6 years. high speeds is being • With partially electrified
• Current compressed H2 storage verified. highways, higher power, higher
has low volumetric and gravimetric • Catenaries are likely to efficiency pick-up receivers
energy densities and high cost. be used only for large may be required than have
Vehicle Technical Cryogenic, liquid hydrogen storage trucks with minimum been tested to date.
Challenges is likely to be a better option for height and proximity to
long-haul and is assumed in this the lines. • Inductive charging could be
study. However, producing, used for both cars and trucks in
• Catenaries are likely to
shipping and storing LH2 faces the same roadways. Like
be placed in limited
challenges. catenaries, it may have limited
locations and trucks may
• PEMFC technologies appear close application so autonomous
need significant
to satisfying heavy-duty durability driving range may be needed.
“autonomous” battery
requirements in the long-haul truck driving range for off-
application, but may still face some system driving.
challenges.
• Construction of large volume • Catenary systems would • The integration of the
hydrogen stations at highway stops require greater height primary coils and fragile ferrite
(at least 10 times or greater in clearance at bridges and cores into the road surface
volume than current urban stations in tunnels, but this can be layers will be challenging.
for H2 LDVs). Will be expensive and avoided by using partial • The top 8 inches of road
require considerable space and electrification sections. surface need to be removed for
dispensing facilities. installing the primary coils and
• Cost savings are possible ferrite cores.
Infrastructure
• Storage of large amounts of by using fewer electrified
Challenges • Road mechanical integrity
hydrogen at truck stops could be a sections and increasing
problems and thermal
problem for both compressed and the battery-based range
expansion discontinuities need
liquefied hydrogen because of the autonomy on trucks, but
further study and testing.
volumes required. this trades off catenary
cost with battery cost and • Acceptable power levels
needed range, so is an depend on vehicle type, making
uncertain aspect. power management
challenging.
• We estimate fuel cell tractor- • Vehicle cost with • Vehicle cost with induction
trailer vehicle cost at approximately pantograph is system is approximately $140K,
$180K for year 2030, which is about approximately $140K, very close to catenary trucks.
25% higher than diesel trucks. On a about 10-15% higher than • Annual O&M costs are
Vehicle Capital and “5 year ownership cost” basis, the diesel.
O&M Costs estimated to be similar to
difference rises to 37%. • Annual O&M costs may catenary trucks.
• Annual O&M costs appear to be be about $48K, about 80%
about $78K, which is somewhat of diesel trucks.
higher than for diesel trucks.
• The iH2 station cost with all • The infrastructure cost • The infrastructure cost for
Infrastructure Cost &
electrolysis, liquefaction, storage for 500 miles in two 500 miles in two directions is
O&M Cost
and dispensing equipment is

ii
 (for a highway estimated to be around $75 million directions is estimated to estimated to be about
section of 500 miles) With 10 stations over 500 miles, be about $1,200M. $1,600M.
this amounts to $750M. • Assumes 50% electrified • Assumes 50% electrified
• Annual (non-energy) O&M costs coverage. coverage.
are about $7.5M. Energy costs • Annual (non-energy) O&M
• Annual O&M (non-
would be high, on the order of costs are about $16M.Energy
energy) costs are about
$0.60 per mile for H2 from costs, taking into account
$11.5M. Energy costs
electrolysis). losses from induction are about
would be on the order of
$0.50 per mile.
$0.40 per mile.
Fuel cell trucks using H2 from CO2 emissions will be Somewhat less efficient than
natural gas will incur CO2 dependent on electricity catenaries so slightly higher
emissions, perhaps 40-50% less per carbon intensity; these CO2 per mile, not important if
mile than diesel trucks. CO2 from will always have lower very clean electricity.
H2 from electricity (as used in this CO2 than fuel cell or
study) will depend on electricity inductive charging from
CO2 impacts
carbon intensity and will be higher same electricity since it is
per mile than catenary trucks given the most efficient of the
the lower net efficiency of three systems. May not
delivering electricity to trucks via be an important
H2 as an intermediate energy advantage if very clean
carrier. electricity.

Our long-term, base case estimates for vehicle, infrastructure, and energy costs by technology
are shown in Figure ES-1 on a per-mile basis, using the 500 mile road-stretch approach. The
infrastructure costs per vehicle mile will vary with system size and the number of vehicles using
the system. We assume high utilization of this infrastructure (and refueling infrastructure for
diesel and hydrogen). In our base scenario, the average cost per mile of the catenary truck
systems is relatively close to those for conventional diesel trucks, with inductive charge systems
somewhat higher and fuel cell trucks higher still. However all are between 70 and 100 cents
per mile. The cost for fuel cells running on hydrogen from electrolysis reflects somewhat higher
cost for the fuel cell trucks, but mostly the high cost of electrolysis (even if this cost is assumed
to decline in the future). The high infrastructure costs for catenary and dynamic charging
systems are mostly offset by lower energy costs from the direct, efficient use of electricity.

iii
 Figure ES-1: Base case cost per mile of different technologies considered in this analysis
These base numbers are highly uncertain and small changes in assumptions can change this
picture. To explore this, a sensitivity analysis was conducted off these base results, varying a
range of variables. We created “tornado” diagrams comparing two technologies at a time. Here
we compare H2 fuel cells with diesel trucks (Figure ES-2). This figure shows that varying each of
a number of assumption by plus or minus 20% compared to the reference case value can have
very different impacts on the relative cost of the two technologies. In particular, fuel cost
changes have big impacts whereas infrastructure and vehicle cost variations do not have
particularly big impacts. This reflects the importance of fuel costs and how big a role they play
in the overall cost of operating a long-haul truck. Figure ES-2 suggests that in a case where H2
cost is low, diesel cost is high, and annual mileage is low, could bring the cost of H2 fuel cell
trucks much closer to the cost of diesel trucks, compared to the base case. Twenty percent
changes in other variables (even a number of these together) would not be enough to bring H2
fuel cell truck costs close to diesel truck costs. Similar tornado figures for other technologies
are shown in the body of the report.

iv
 Figure ES-2: H2 fuel cell vs diesel truck: changes in relative cost per mile as a function of
changing input assumptions
Overall, it appears too early to make a determination regarding which of these technology
options is the most likely to win the cost-competitiveness sweepstakes, and more research and
demonstration projects are needed. A critical factor will be the high up-front capital costs for
all three, which may have to occur before many trucks are running that can utilize the systems.
This creates potentially very challenging chicken-or-egg problems. Similarly, all three options
benefit from large scale application and will be much more expensive than shown here for
small scale applications, and/or cases where few trucks use the system. Perhaps hydrogen has
the best chance of overcoming these, given its better “scalability”; a lower cost of building
incremental refueling infrastructure as well as flexibility of this infrastructure in terms of
location and the radial range of the trucks that refuel at these stations. The already begun
efforts to develop H2 infrastructure for light-duty vehicles (at least in California) give this
technology a “leg up”.
Ultimately policies to promote both the provision of infrastructure and the uptake of the
relevant vehicle technologies will be needed, though the question remains which pathway(s) to
prioritize. Truck OEMs and fleets should be heavily involved in such on-going efforts and
discussions, as these two stakeholder groups will need to adapt and likely share much of the
cost burden, and will have a major impact on success or failure of any of these options.

v
1. Introduction
Transitioning to a zero or near-zero emission freight transportation system is a necessary step
in meeting the long-term air pollution and greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction goals of
California. Trucking dominates our nation’s freight transportation system. According to the
American Trucking Association, over 70% of all the freight tonnage in the U.S. is moved by
trucks and over 3.4 million heavy-duty Class 8 trucks consume over 38 billion gallons of diesel
fuel annually. As a significant component of the freight transportation system and a primary
source of emissions, long-haul freight truck transportation must be involved in the transition to
zero or near-zero emission technologies. This report compares the several approaches
available for zero-emission trucking.
Class 8 freight trucks are defined as trucks with gross vehicle weight between 33,000 – 80,000
lbs (14,969 – 36,287 kg). Tractor-trailer combinations with 5 or more axles, shown in Figure 1
are typical Class 8 Trucks. Diesel trucks with 13- and 15-liter diesel engines which deliver a
power of 400 – 600 horsepower (300 – 450 kW) dominate U.S. long-haul truck freight transport.
Class 8 long-haul trucks usually carry two 125-gallon tanks of diesel fuel and operate 8-9 hours
with daily mileage of 450-550 miles and average a yearly mileage of 90,000 miles. They are the
largest greenhouse gas and pollutant emitters and fuel users. Therefore, significant emission
reductions in long-haul freight trucks are needed to meet California’s pollutant emission and
climate goals. Some studies show that biofuels have the potential to provide deep cuts to GHG
emissions for the long-haul freight truck sector. However, biofuels do not eliminate pollutant
emissions and there are uncertainties regarding their sustainability and their impact on water
and land-use change.

Figure 1.Typical Class 8 Freight Truck

All electric trucks are a promising alternative to conventional diesel engine/transmission trucks
due to their high efficiency and zero tail-pipe emissions. The electrical energy to power them
can be provided by external power sources, such as in-road dynamic inductive charging or
overhead catenary lines, or can be generated on-board by a hydrogen polymer electrolyte
membrane fuel cell (PEMFC). External electricity powered drivetrains tend to be about twice as
efficient as conventional diesel engine/transmission powertrains. PEMFCs can have greater
energy efficiency than diesel engines, up to about a third. Hence it is of interest to compare
these zero-emission technology alternatives for long-haul truck applications.

1
The objectives of this study are to review advanced zero-emission trucking technologies and to
compare them in terms of technical requirements, current status, operational, maintenance,
and infrastructure considerations. Three zero-emission long-haul trucking technologies are
analyzed in this study:
• In-road dynamic inductive charging technology
• Catenary electric trucks
• Hydrogen fuel cell electric trucks
In this study, these three truck technologies are assessed to determine their potential as
alternatives to conventional diesel truck technology. The study does not consider some nearer
term technologies such as natural gas or biogas fueled diesel trucks, or advanced hybrid trucks
(though a very efficient ICE diesel truck is used in the comparisons). The study focuses on a
future date (2030) when the technologies are assumed to have matured and are available at
scale with associated cost reductions. Many more assumptions are described below, and a
number of sensitivity cases are presented to test the importance of various assumptions.
The study includes the following sections. Section 2 looks at the traction power requirement
and energy consumption of typical Class 8 long-haul freight trucks (Table 1). Sections 3 through
5 provide technical reviews of dynamic inductive charging, catenary electric, and hydrogen fuel
cell trucks from the viewpoints of their current status, cost, and operational and maintenance
(O&M) considerations. In Section 6, the three zero-emission long-haul trucking technologies are
compared with conventional diesel trucks in terms of vehicle capital and O&M costs and
infrastructure costs. Section 7 provides the main results, while Section 8 provides a sensitivity
analysis. Section 9 summarizes the conclusions of this study and suggests pathways for
demonstrations of zero-emission long-haul truck technologies.

2. Traction Power and Energy Consumption of Long-

Haul Trucks
Dynamic inductive charge trucks, catenary electric trucks, and hydrogen fuel cell trucks all use
electric traction motors to power the vehicles. To assess the impact of electrified trucks on the
load profile of the electric distribution network and estimate the requirement for hydrogen
refueling infrastructure, it is essential to determine the dynamic power consumption of the
long-haul trucks. The gross average traction power and energy requirements of a typical Class 8
long-haul truck can be calculated from the vehicle’s specifications and velocity profile. Table 1
lists the vehicle inputs.

2
Table 1. Class 8 Truck Inputs (33,000 lbs – 80,000 lbs / 14,970 kg – 36,280 kg)
Component Model Characteristics
Aero Drag Coefficient (Cd) 0.6
Frontal Area (A: m2) 10
Tire Rolling Resistance (eta) 0.0065
Curb Weight Including Empty Trailer (kg) 15,700
Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (kg) 25,400 kg *
Transmission 10 Speed efficiency 98%
Axle Efficiency 98%
Electrical Accessories 4 kW
Motor Efficiency 94%
Inverter Efficiency 99%
Average mileages Up to 500 miles/day
(284 average over 365
day year),
104,000 miles/year
*70% of the rated load of 36,280 kg
Electrification of long-haul freight trucks can significantly modify the load profile of the electric
distribution network. The power and energy demands to the grid depend on the truck power
requirement, daily peak truck flow rate, and traffic conditions. The power requirement of a
typical Class 8 long-haul truck is calculated based on its aerodynamic drag 𝑃𝑎𝑒𝑟𝑜 , tire rolling
resistance 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔 , drivetrain power loss 𝑃𝑑𝑟𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑙𝑜𝑠𝑠 , and accessory and hotel power 𝑃𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑒𝑠𝑠 .
If we assume the road is on level terrain and there is no headwind, the power demand of a
specific truck as a function of speed is given by equations (1)-(3). The energy consumption per
mile can be calculated in terms of kWh/mile.

Aerodynamic drag power (kW)

1
𝑃𝑎𝑒𝑟𝑜 = 𝜌𝑣 3 𝐶𝑑 𝐴 (1)
2

Tire rolling resistance power (kW)

𝑃𝑡𝑖𝑟𝑒 = 𝜂. 𝑚𝑔. 𝑣 (2)

Traction power demand (kW)

𝑃(𝑣) = 𝑃𝑎𝑒𝑟𝑜 + 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔 + 𝑃𝑑𝑟𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑙𝑜𝑠𝑠 + 𝑃𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑒𝑠𝑠 (3)

3
Table 2. Traction Power Request and Energy Consumption from Class 8 Trucks
Speed Aero Rolling Axle Trans. Elec. Motor Traction Traction
(mph) Drag Resistance Loss Loss Access. loss Power Energy
(kW) (kW) (kW) (kW) (kW) (kW) (kW) (kWh/mile)
20 2.6 14.5 0.4 0.4 4.0 1.9 24 1.2
40 21.0 28.9 1.0 1.0 4.0 4.9 61 1.5
50 41.0 36.2 1.6 1.6 4.0 7.3 92 1.8
60 70.9 43.4 2.3 2.4 4.0 10.7 134 2.2
65 90.1 47.0 2.8 2.9 4.0 12.8 160 2.5
70 112.5 50.6 3.3 3.4 4.0 15.1 189 2.7

Traction Power (kW) Traction Energy (kWh/mile)

200 3.0

TRANCTION ENERGY (KWH/MILE)

180
2.5
TRACTION POWER (KW)

160
140 2.0
120
100 1.5
80
60 1.0
40 0.5
20
0 0.0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
TRUCK SPEED (MPH)

Figure 2. Traction power and energy requirement of a typical Class 8 long-haul truck
The traction power and energy consumption for a typical Class 8 truck over a wide range of
speed are given in Table 2. The values given represent the average power and electricity
required to power the vehicle at constant speeds; actual power can vary significantly with route
speed and grade profiles. For diesel trucks, the engine power needed to propel the truck is 160
kW at 65 mph. With an average diesel engine efficiency of 49% in 2030, the estimated fuel
economy of conventional diesel trucks at 65 mph is approximate 8.1 mpg. PEMFC’s can have
greater energy efficiency than diesel engines, up to 65%. In that case, the fuel economy of
hydrogen fuel cell trucks at 65 mph would be 9.58 mile/kg H2.
Current battery technology restricts its application on long-haul freight trucks. Since a typical
Class 8 truck consumes energy of 2.7 kWh per mile at 70 mph, a battery pack of 1.7 MWh (80%
usable) would be needed for an electric truck to have a range of 500 miles on a single charge.
Considering the most promising battery chemistries (such as Li-titanate) have a gravimetric
energy density of 200 Wh/kg and volumetric energy density of 400 Wh/L, a 1.7 MWh battery

4
pack would weigh 8.4 tons and occupy 4,218 liters (150 cubic feet) space. Hence, current
battery technology is not expected to provide sufficient range for long-haul trucks for
reasonable weight, volume, and cost. However, smaller batteries onboard electric trucks could
be feasible when combined with roadside stationary charging, in-road dynamic inductive
charging, or overhead catenary system infrastructure. For a long-haul truck transport, frequent
roadside stationary charging is time consuming and would result in significant delays that could
reduce freight truck competitiveness and cause a mode shift to rail. In contrast to stationary
charging, in-road dynamic inductive charging and overhead catenary wires are more attractive
for long-distance travel, since they enable power exchange between the vehicle and the power
supply system while the vehicle is moving.

3. Inductive Charging Technology

Various wireless inductive power transfer methods for charging electric vehicles have been
developed. Dynamic inductive charging technology has been successfully tested in small-scale
demonstration projects around the world. However, dynamic inductive charging requires the
road to be electrified to provide partial to full power for freight trucks and thus has a number of
challenges. These challenges must be addressed before in-road dynamic inductive charging can
be adopted in California’s highway system. The following subsections provide a status review
of inductive power transfer technology and challenging operational and infrastructure
considerations. Since both stationary inductive charging and dynamic inductive charging use
the same wireless power transfer technologies, the review of the stationary inductive charging
technology is also included.

3.1 Wireless Inductive Charging

Wireless inductive charging devices can be installed beneath parking areas, city roads or
highways for electric vehicle charging. Wireless inductive charging usually has at least one
primary coil (source transmitter) embedded in the pavement. The primary coil generates a
varying magnetic field which induces a current in the secondary coil (load receiver) mounted
under the vehicle. There are two applications of wireless inductive charging technologies:
stationary charging and dynamic charging. In the stationary wireless inductive charging
application, typically the vehicle is parked for a long duration of time (garage, parking spot, bus
terminal, etc.) or the vehicle is en route and stops for a short period of time (car waiting at the
traffic light, bus at a stop, etc.). For dynamic charging, the vehicle may travel at constant or
variable speed typically in a dedicated special lane that hosts the charging infrastructure.
Several wireless charging technologies have been developed for electric vehicle charging
applications [Brecher, Miller, Lu, Qiu, Song, and Shin]. Traditional inductive power transfer is
based on magnetic field induction that delivers electric energy from a primary source coil to a
receiver (load) coil, as shown in Figure 3. The operating frequency and power of traditional
inductive power transfer are typically in the range of kHz and up to high kilowatt levels. The

5
effective charging distance is generally less than 20 cm due to low quality factor [Qiu]. The
latest wireless charging technology - magnetic resonance charging offers increased efficiency
and the requirement for less precise position alignment of the charging transmitter and the
vehicle receiver compared to traditional inductive power transfer technology. Magnetic
resonance coupling is enhanced by using two or more pairs of RLC resonators to generate
oscillating magnetic fields (Figure 3). Two or more coils, operating at the same resonant
frequency, are strongly coupled to extend operating range and increase power transfer
efficiency. The operating frequency of current magnetic resonance charging for electric vehicles
ranges from 20 kHz to 140 kHz. Compared to conventional inductive power transfer, coupled
magnetic resonance technology could transfer power over larger gaps with high efficiency of
over 90%. Therefore, it is widely adopted to stationary and dynamic inductive charging
applications.

Figure 3. Wireless power transfer technologies: (a) traditional inductive power transfer, (b)
coupled magnetic resonance, and (c) strongly coupled magnetic resonance [Source: Qiu]

3.2 Stationary Inductive Wireless Charging

Current status
Stationary charging technology can be considered mature. Currently, the commercial focus of
wireless charging is on stationary use cases. Most stationary wireless inductive charging
systems on the market today are for passenger cars and offer power transfer rates of between

6
3 kW and 7 kW, which are still being treated as aftermarket add-ons. Wireless inductive
charging hasn’t been able to match the high-power transfer rates offered by DC fast charging.
The only wireless charger on the market today is Plugless by Evatran. Since the receivers have
to be custom-made for different vehicles, Evatran developed Plugless 3.3 kW models for the
Nissan Leaf, Chevrolet Volt, and Cadillac ELR, and a 7.2 kW model for the Tesla Model S (Figure
4). Evatran has stated that the Plugless is about 12% less efficient than a conventional Level 2,
7.2 kW 240V charging system. Bosch, partnered with Evatran, is offering a wireless system with
6.6 kW. WiTricity is working with several major automakers and OEM part suppliers to
demonstrate their wireless charging technology in the Toyota PHEV Prius, Honda Fit EV,
Mitsubishi i-MiEV, and Audi A3 e-tron. Currently, Qualcomm is working with Ricardo to
commercialize their Qualcomm Halo wireless EV charging technology in Europe. The Halo
wireless charger can transfer up to 3.5 kW at greater than 90% efficiency. According to the Audi
Media Center, Audi will launch Audi Wireless Charging system in 2017, offering a charging
power of 3.6 kW in the first generation and possibly a higher power of 11 kW in the next
version. Prior to charging, the embedded power transmitter will be raised to minimize the air
gap between the primary coil and the secondary coil for achieving higher power transfer
efficiency. Oak Ridge National Laboratory has demonstrated a 20 kW inductive charging system
at 90% efficiency and plans to build a prototype 50 kW system capable of transferring the same
kind of energy through inductive charging as a typical DC fast charging station.

Figure 4. Plugless Charging from Evatran [Source: www.pluglesspower.com]

Despite the advancement of wireless charging technology, the floor charging pad still needs to
raise the primary coil to improve the efficiency by shortening the distance mechanically. The
efficiency of wireless charging also highly relies on the alignment of the charging pad and the
receiver. Guided positioning through sensors is needed for making alignment to achieve tight
coupling. Normally, wireless charging incurs higher cost compared to conductive charging.
Plugless has wireless charging station priced at $1,260 for a 3.6 kW system, $3,000 for a 6.6 kW
system, and $3,420 for a 7.2 kW system. Average cost of stationary wireless charging is
between $350/kW - $475/kW.

7
Stationary inductive wireless charging technologies are also being widely demonstrated in
electric buses. The U.S. Federal Transit Administration (FTA) GIGGER program and the Clean
Fuels Grant program awarded several wireless charging electric bus demonstration projects
between 2011 and 2013. The Chattanooga Area Regional Transportation Authority
demonstrated three electric shuttle buses equipped with a 60 kW wireless charging system. The
onboard battery could receive fast charging for three minutes at stops. One Utah Transit
Authority’s electric bus demonstrated a 50kW WAVE wireless charging system developed by
the University of Utah. In 2016, the California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA) funded
Antelope Valley Transit Authority (AVTA) to purchase 29 BYD electric buses, which can be
recharged through wireless inductive charging. AVTA has set a goal to purchase up to 85 new
all-electric buses over the next three years and install 15 wireless charging stations over the
next two years. Wireless charging enables rapidly recharging electric bus batteries in stations or
at stops along a bus route to extend the driving range of electric buses without interrupting
operation. Transportation agencies are showing high interest in wireless charging for electric
buses on heavily traveled routes that would justify capital investment.

3.3 Dynamic Inductive Wireless Charging

Technology
The dynamic inductive power supply system contains transmission substations, road-side
traction substations and distributed high frequency power inverters, and embedded power
transfer coils. The power transfer primary coils are embedded in the road pavement and
divided into several segments. The road-side inverter provides high frequency (20 kHz - 140
kHz) alternative current power to several in-road primary coil segments. Dynamic inductive
charging vehicles communicate with road-side inverters and the inverter excites only the
segment on which a vehicle is located. The primary coil segments must be sequentially turned
on in synchronism with the passage of the vehicle pick-up secondary coil. This power
management reduces power losses and avoids regular vehicles and human exposure to high
frequency time-varying electromagnetic fields [Qiu, Shin, and Miller]. Figure 5 below depicts a
section of the electrified roadway with dynamic inductive charging.

8
 Figure 5. Dynamic wireless charging schematic [Source: Highways England]
When the vehicle pick-up secondary coil passes over the excited primary coil, both primary and
secondary coils are tuned to resonance at the excitation frequency. Thus, high frequency power
is transferred from the primary coil to the secondary coil. The received AC power is further
rectified and regulated for powering the traction motor and/or charging the onboard battery.
Figure 5 shows five pick-up coils are used to achieve 100-kW power transfer capacity in a large
truck or bus [Shin]. Unlike the stationary inductive charging, relative motion between the
primary coil and secondary coil has significant impact on power transfer of dynamic charging.
100% power transfer could be achieved when the primary coil and the secondary coil are fully
aligned, and 50% of full power can be transferred when the secondary coil is midway between
the two primary coils. This power variability happens during vehicle passage over embedded
coils and would have impact on grid stability. Ultracapacitors near inverters may be needed to
smooth the pulsating power demand. A short overlapped primary coils configuration could
reduce power variability but at higher costs [Miller].

9
 Figure 6. OLEV five 20-kW pick-up modules [Source: Shin]

Current Status
Dynamic inductive charging, also known as in-road wireless charging while driving, provides an
opportunity for electric vehicles to have unlimited range. Dynamic inductive charging
technology can help reduce the battery size and eliminate recharge-related waiting time. Most
of the stationary wireless inductive charging systems could be used for transferring power while
driving. However, transitioning from stationary to dynamic inductive charging faces more
technology challenges such as charging power fluctuation and management, vehicle sensing
and alignment, vehicle to infrastructure communication and implementation challenges in
terms of infrastructure construction [Brecher, Deflorio, Miller, Navidi, Qiu, Song, and Swedish
Viktoria].
Dynamic inductive charging for transit bus applications is becoming a fascinating research area.
Many companies are studying and developing this technology. In South Korea, Online Electric
Vehicles (OLEV) dynamic inductive charging technology has been developed by the Korea
Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST) in 2009. A 2.2 km tram loop was installed
10
with a 62 kW wireless powered tram in Seoul Zoo and Grand Park in 2010. Two OLEV electric
buses have been demonstrated on a bus route through the city of Gumi since 2012. Canadian
Bombardier developed the PRIMOVE wireless power transfer solution for all types of electric
vehicles – from light rail and bus networks to commercial vehicles, truck and electric cars. It
demonstrated its 200 kW PRIMOVE inductive power transfer systems during an e-bus pilot
project and light rail project using both stationary and dynamic inductive charging in Germany
in 2012. Utah State University began construction of the Electric Vehicle and Roadway (EVR)
research facility in Park City Utah in 2014. The EVR complex includes a quarter-mile dynamic
inductive charging test track and a trial transit bus to verify system efficiency, reliability and
safety. The European Union (EU) has an ongoing FABRIC project, which runs from 2014 through
2017 implemented by 25 partner organizations from 9 European countries. Its objective is to
assess the feasibility of dynamic charging and define the required adaptations of the existing
infrastructure and the investments needed to develop such charging systems at a large scale.
Dynamic wireless charging is technologically feasible and has been successfully demonstrated in
research prototypes of transit buses and light rail projects. With respect to commercialization,
dynamic charging is still in the early stages and faces many new challenges compared to
stationary wireless charging. Substantial validation work has to be done for this technology – in
particular with respect to higher infrastructure costs and power transfer levels.
In recently years, several research institutes and companies including KAIST, Bombardier, Oak
Ridge National Laboratory, the University of Auckland, etc. have demonstrated their dynamic
inductive charging technologies. KAIST’s OLEV and Bombardier PRIMOVE technologies are well
known and widely demonstrated in real world conditions.

KAIST the Online Electric Vehicle (OLEV)

In the KAIST’s OLEV project, two OLEV wirelessly recharged buses have been demonstrated on a
15-mile line through the city of Gumi, South Korea in 2012. The OLEVs run ten times per day
through the city. 10-15% of the bus route is electrified and covered with wireless recharging
pads. The OLEV buses have a small battery and receive 20 kHz and 100 kW at maximum power
transmission efficiency of 85%, while maintaining a 17 cm air gap between the underbody of
the vehicle and the road surface. Five 20-kW pick-up coils were mounted under the underbody
of the OLEV bus to obtain 100-kW power transfer capacity. Figure 7 shows that the primary
coils have been installed under the road surface of a bus route. Ferrite cores (not shown in the
photo) were used in the center of the primary coils to shape the magnetic fields to maximize
magnetic coupling. The electrified road sections can distinguish OLEV buses from regular cars;
the high frequency power supply is only switched on when OLEV buses pass, but is switched off
for other vehicles to prevent high frequency magnetic field exposure and standby power
consumption. Since a few sections of the road (10%-15% of the entire road) are required to be
rebuilt with the embedded coil segments, road modification expenses are expected to be costly
and time consuming.

11
 Figure 7. Construction and operation of dynamic wireless charging [Source: Jang]

Bombardier PRIMOVE
In 2012, Bombardier demonstrated in Germany its 200 kW PRIMOVE inductive power transfer
systems during an e-bus pilot project and light rail project using both stationary and dynamic
inductive charging. Charging pads were installed at stops along a bus route in Mannheim to
charge electric buses without interrupting operation. Two electric buses converted for inductive
charging have been demonstrated for one year. Bombardier’s PRIMOVE system has also been
demonstrated in operation on a light rail line in Augsburg, Germany. One bidirectional
Bombardier low-floor tram has been equipped with PRIMOVE power receivers to capture the
inductive power from the primary coils embedded under the track. 8-m long coil segments laid
between the rails and beneath the ground are powered by the track wayside inverters, as
shown in Figure 8.

Figure 8. Bombardier PRIMOVE dynamic inductive charging light rail [Source:

http://primove.bombardier.com]

12
Bombardier’s PRIMOVE technology was also adopted in Belgium Flanders’ DRIVE research
project. A test track of 600 meters was developed, including two inductive sections with one
section having a cement concrete pavement and the other section testing an asphalt concrete
pavement. A Van Hool bus fitted with a 160-kW inductive power transfer system was
demonstrated while being parked and while moving in the first phase. An electric Volvo C30 car
equipped with a 22-kW system was tested in the second phase. An electric bus with a 200-kW
system was demonstrated later in Bruges Belgium. The Belgian Road Research Centre’s (BRRC)
study showed that it is possible to integrate inductive power transfer systems into the
conventional pavement [Chen].
In 2013, Scania and Bombardier together demonstrated the dynamic inductive charging
technology in the Slide-in Electric Road System-Inductive project, which was partially funded by
the Swedish Energy Agency [Sweden Viktoria ICT]. The test track system, as shown in Figure 9,
has been developed to test the functionality of dynamic inductive power transfer for long-
distance heavy-duty vehicles and to justify the infrastructure costs. A 300-meter test track of
with four 20-meter highway segments has been built. A Scania diesel hybrid long-haul truck
equipped with a Bombardier inductive power transfer system was demonstrated on the test
track (shown in Figure 10). The hybrid truck has a 120-kW electric motor and a 100 kWh battery
pack. The dynamic inductive charging system is capable of delivering 200 kW onboard over 85
mm or 100 mm air gap with efficiency up to 90%.

Figure 9. Swedish dynamic inductive charging test track system [Source: Sweden Viktoria ICT]

13
Figure 10.Electrified test track with PRIMOVE and Scania Truck [Source: Sweden Viktoria ICT]

3.4 Cost
The estimated dynamic inductive charging infrastructure cost varies between a few hundred
thousand dollars per mile to tens of million dollars per mile [APPM, Brecher, Deflorio, Highways
England, Fuller, Jang, Lu, Navidi, Qiu, Shekhar, Shin, and Swedish Viktoria]. The Highways
England’s feasibility study showed that under different traffic conditions and an assumed
scenario for vehicle and technology penetration, average power demand from dynamic
inductive charging systems can be as high as 0.5MVA per mile with maximum daily power
requirements being approximately 4-4.5 MVA/mile. Based on the assumed infrastructure
scenario, the estimated cost for dynamic inductive charging infrastructure could vary between
£350,000 and £425,000 per km ($0.9-1.1M/mile at 1£=$1.5). Research at The Delft University
of Technology (TU Delft) study shows that passenger vehicles can charge up to a maximum of
30 kW. For heavy-duty vehicles, capacity begins at 50 kW and runs up to 200 kW and the cost of
dynamic inductive charging infrastructure is roughly €300,000–€500,000 per linear kilometer
($0.6-1M/mile at €1 = $1.2), not including the system’s installation in the vehicle and any
associated conversion required. Shin’s study shows that the estimated mass production costs
are $235,790/km for the OLEV infrastructure and approximate $89/kW for the power receiver
unit. This estimated infrastructure cost is very low mainly due to the relatively low power
requirement and no new power supply substation needed. Fuller reported that existing cost
estimates of dynamic inductive charging infrastructure is between $2.3 M and $3.2 M per lane
mile, and presented an original cost estimation of $3.4 M per lane mile. In his 2016
Transportation Research paper, a conservative estimate of $4 M per lane mile was used in his
cost optimization approach.
Swedish Viktoria ICT’s study broke down the system cost into power supply infrastructure cost
and road power transfer installation cost. The estimated average load for the electrified
highway near Jonkoping is about 0.96-1.4 MW/km based on maximum hourly traffic flow
multiplied by a safety factor of 2. The power supply infrastructure cost for transforming the
130 kV AC to the 750 V DC is 20.7 MSEK/km ($4.2M/mile @ 1SEK=$0.128 in 2014) for maximum
load case and 7.2 MSEK/km ($1.5M/mile) for the average load case. For road installation of the

14
Bombardier dynamic inductive power transfer system, both full inductive charging – 100% of
roadway covered with inductive charging and opportunity inductive charging – 35% of roadway
electrified with inductive charging were analyzed. The cost of road installation for full inductive
charging is approximately 56MSEK/km ($11.5M/mile for both directions). Thus, the total system
infrastructure cost including 130 kV power transmission substations, road side substations, and
road installation is 77 MSEK/km ($15.8M/mile route) for maximum load case and 63 MSEK/km
($12.9M/mile) for average load case, which do not include the costs of control systems and
payment solutions. The cost for the average load case could be reduced from 63 MSEK/km
($12.9M/mile) to 39 MSEK/km ($6.1/mile) taking the volume effect into account. For
opportunity inductive charging, road installation cost could be reduced from 56MSEK/km
($11.5M/mile) to 36 MSEK/km ($7.4M/mile).

The costs of dynamic charging infrastructure vary with peak traffic flow, vehicle types, charging
demands, and road electrification coverage. Peak power demands for the electrified highway
determine the cost of power supply installation. Road installation cost heavily depends on
power demands and road electrification coverage. Road installation dominates the total
infrastructure cost.

3.5 Efficiency
Power transfer efficiency of dynamic charging infrastructure affects the maximum power
requirement from utility grids. It is related to the air gap between the receiver mounting on the
underbody of the vehicle and the power transmitter embedded in the road. The OLEV 100 kW
dynamic inductive charging system achieved 85% maximum power transmission efficiency
while maintaining a gap of 17 cm, and only 80% at a distance of 26 cm. The Delft University of
Technology (TU Delft) study shows that it is possible for stationary wireless charging to achieve
an efficiency of greater than 90% at a coil distance of 20 centimeters. The TU Delft system
achieved roughly 85% efficiency in a dynamic inductive charging test set. Germany’s
Fraunhofer Society has even managed to achieve 93% efficiency. Bombardier’s PRIMOVE
system demonstrated 183 kW power transfer over 85-100 mm air gap with efficiency about 80-
90% without system optimization. The Swedish Viktoria ICT study estimated that the total
traction efficiency of the dynamic inductive charging is 68.8 to 77.4% from the 130kV grid to the
truck wheel based on calculated PRIMOVE efficiency of 78.6 to 88.4%.

3.6 Challenges
Dynamic inductive charging uses the same basic technology as used for the stationary inductive
charging. Thus, it faces some common challenges with stationary wireless charging plus specific
challenges from in-road dynamic charging, including:

• Acceptable power levels depending on vehicle types and classes

• Power flow management depending on traffic flow and vehicle types
• Pulsating charging power caused by frequent switching on and off of the wireless power
supply

15
 • Power fluctuations introduced by traffic flow and their impacts on grid stability
• Harmonics generated by the wireless inductive power supply systems
• Infrastructure integration and its impacts on highway maintenance [Qiu, Miller]
These challenges must be carefully addressed before in-road dynamic inductive charging can be
deployed. Given the state of testing and demonstration projects, it could be many years before
inductive charging systems are ready for large scale roll-outs.

4. Catenary Electric Trucks

4.1 Technology
Overhead catenary wire systems have been widely used for trolley buses, light rail transit trains,
and high speed trains for many decades due to their high efficiency. Truck trolley systems are
often seen in mining facilities for off-road mining trucks to haul materials such as coal and ore.
Overhead catenary power supply systems can use either DC or AC. 25 kV AC catenary wires are
commonly used in high speed railway electrification systems for high efficiency over a long
distance. A stepdown transformer and AC/DC converter are required onboard the train. Most
modern light rail transit trains and trolley buses use DC currents, but require closely spaced DC
converter stations for reducing catenary wire resistive losses. Several voltage levels have been
utilized for catenary electric systems depending on power levels and power substation spacing.
Typically, 750 V DC overhead catenary wires are widely used in modern electric trolley buses
and light rail transit trains in urban areas where power distribution systems exist. Catenary
electric systems feature higher power transfer rates with higher efficiency compared to other
electricity transfer approaches.
Catenary electric technology for long-haul freight truck applications is similar to that of bus
trolley lines and light rail transit catenary systems. The catenary power supply is made up of
high voltage transmission substations with spacing of up to 40 miles and low voltage roadside
traction substations at a distance interval of about 1 mile. The traction substation consists of a
stepping down transformer, a rectifier and some protection equipment, which converts high AC
transmission voltage into low DC voltage, typically 750 V for modern catenary systems. The
catenary wires that are connected to the traction substation provide DC power to the truck’s
pantograph. For a long-distance catenary system, several power distribution substations may
be needed to increase system stability and reduce transmission loss.

4.2 Current Status

Overhead catenary technology is mature and well developed. Combining efficient catenary
power supply technology with the flexibility of highway transport could make electric truck
freight transport more efficient. However, the feasibility of long-haul trucks interfacing with
catenary wires is not clear. In 2012, Siemens presented an eHighway concept including trucks
and electric infrastructure. The eHighway solution uses overhead catenary wires with 750 V DC,

16
widely adopted for trolley buses and light rail transit systems. Electric trucks connect to the
overhead catenary wires by a type of active pantograph, which can detect catenary wires and
connect/disconnect vehicles at high speed. Siemen’s eHighway technology was tested in two
catenary electric truck demonstration projects, Sweden’s eHighway and California’s eHighway.
Various powertrain architectures, including diesel hybrid, natural gas hybrid, and battery
electric trucks, have been demonstrated in real-world operations.

Sweden’s eHighway
In 2016, Sweden tested the world’s first catenary system for heavy-duty trucks on a public road.
A 1.25-mile stretch of the right lane of the E16 highway near the city of Gavle, north of
Stockholm was electrified, featuring a 750 V DC overhead catenary system provided by
Siemens. Two diesel-hybrid trucks were adapted to operate under the catenary system in real-
word conditions. There is no separation between the electrified lane and other lanes for
conventional cars and trucks, as shown in Figure 11. This two-year demonstration project
includes two Scania G360 trucks. The trucks were modified to pull power from the overhead
wires with active pantographs from Siemens, which can connect and disconnect at speeds up to
90km/h. The Scania G360 trucks are hybrids, with 9.0-liter diesel engines configured to run on
biofuel as well as electric motors. The hybrid powertrains will allow the trucks to operate in all-
electric mode while connected to the catenary wires, and in hybrid electric mode while running
on non-electrified lanes as well.

Figure 11.Sweden’s catenary electric truck project [Source: www.scania.com]

17
California eHighway
In 2015, a similar catenary system spanning the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach was
developed in Carson, CA to demonstrate zero-emission truck movement between the ports and
near-dock rails facilities on a regional level. According to the South Coast Air Quality
Management District, the near-term project goal is to deploy catenary systems along CA-
47/103 freeways to reduce pollutant emissions around the dock rail yards. The long-term goal is
to develop a zero-emission truck corridor along the I-710 and CA-60 freeways from the ports to
East Los Angeles, as shown in Figure 12. The trial catenary system is one-mile long in both
directions along Alameda Street in Carson. The system uses 750 V DC power and is powered by
a DC power substation with a capacity of 1.5 MVA. Four trucks are being modified to equip
pantographs and will be demonstrated soon:

• Volvo Mack Class 8 diesel parallel hybrid

• BAE/Kenworth Class 8 CNG parallel hybrid
• TransPower CNG series hybrid (ElecTruck truck with a CNG engine/generator range
extender)
• Transpower battery electric (Class 8 ElecTruck with reduced battery)
All these trucks have the ability of operating on electricity from the overhead catenary system
and can also be driven on conventional roads using internal combustion engines or onboard
batteries.

18
 Near-term demonstration project in Carson Future demonstration from LB port to East LA
Figure 12. Southern California eHighway project [Source: www.aqmd.gov]

4.3 Cost
Like the dynamic inductive charging system, the infrastructure cost for the catenary power
supply system can also be broken down into two parts: power supply infrastructure cost and
roadside installation cost.
Building railway overhead catenary systems can be very costly. SYSTRA/COWI’S study estimated
that the costs of the catenary system varies between €0.8-1M/km ($1.6-2.1M/mile at €1 =
$1.35 in 2014), depending on its construction (single or double copper wire) and pole location
(Axial or lateral). The estimated cost from trains.com is about $1 million per mile, assuming that
there are no significant distribution substations to be built and no tunnel or bridge clearance
work involved. Boer’s study (2012) estimated that the catenary electric system costs in the
range of 2-3 million euro per highway km ($4-6M/mile at €1 = $1.27) for two highway lanes.
Isaac’s study indicated that the railway catenary costs vary between $1.25M/mile and
$8.8M/mile and two significant contributors to the high costs of electrifying railway
infrastructure are right-of-way worker protection insurance and the need to work around
existing, operating trains, which leads to low levels of productivity during daytime.

19
Highway systems are different than railway systems in terms of utilization and construction.
Road traffic flow is more unpredictable than rail traffic. Truck traffic flow in major California
freight corridors varies between several thousand trucks and several ten thousand trucks with
5+ axles per day [Caltrans]. High capacity catenary infrastructure with new power plants is
needed to satisfy peak traffic demand of electric trucks. Further, catenary systems for double-
track railways that have one track in each direction with two tracks positioned closely require
only one set of catenary support systems. Electrified opposing truck lanes on divided highway
are usually separated by wide median strips or central reservation and require separate
catenary support systems. Therefore, weighing all these factors, catenary system construction
costs for highway freight transport may be double the construction cost of electrifying railways.
According to Swedish Viktoria ICT’s study, the power supply infrastructure cost for transforming
the 130 kV AC to the 750 V DC is $4.2M/mile for maximum load case of 2.2MW/mile and
$1.5M/mile for average load case of 1.5MW/mile. The road installation cost for building the
roadside overhead catenary system depends on percentage of roadway electrification
coverage. There is no robust road installation cost data available. Overall, we assume a cost of
about $1.2 trillion to cover 500 miles of roadway at 50% coverage in both directions.

4.4 Challenges
Overhead catenary wires along highway systems for long-haul truck applications are rare due to
several challenges. The trucks equipped with active pantographs must have the ability of
detecting and connecting and disconnecting overhead catenary wires at varying high speeds.
The power demands from road loads heavily depend on traffic flow. Therefore, catenary wires
need to meet extreme traffic conditions and might require new power plants built close to
avoid high power losses on power transmission lines. Building overhead catenary systems for
long-haul trucks along highway systems may require higher height clearance at bridges or in
tunnels, which may incur costly remedial work. All these will increase capital expenditure of
electrifying current highway systems. As roll-out occurs, costs will come down, but the chicken-
or-egg nature of developing wide-spread catenary systems and trucks that can run on them
may make this a slow process.

5. Hydrogen Fuel Cell Electric Trucks

5.1 Technology
A variety of fuel cell technologies has been commercially developed. Two fuel cell technology
options are considered for transport applications: polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cells
(PEMFC) and solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC). They are defined largely by their operating
temperature. PEMFC operates in the temperature range of 60 to 120 °C, which means that the
warm up time of fuel cells is very short. However, low temperature operation of a PEMFC
requires pure hydrogen as the fuel. SOFC has operating temperatures of 650 to 1,000 °C, which
means that it takes a long time to bring the system up to operating temperature. Due to the

20
high temperature, SOFC can use a variety of fuels such as hydrogen, methane, and other light
hydrocarbon fuels that can be internally reformed. Currently, the SOFC is only considered for
long-time high power applications such as locomotives. In most cases, PEMFC is usually paired
with a battery to form the PEMFC/battery hybrid system used in passenger cars. Thus, the fuel
cell power can be sized based on the average power, which is less than the conventional diesel
engine power level. A battery is used to initiate fuel cell start-up and supplement the power
generated by a fuel cell.

There are two types of fuel cell battery hybrid configurations [CARB 2015]. One configuration is
the battery dominant configuration, in which a small fuel cell acts as a range extender to charge
the battery when the battery is depleted below a set level. In this case, the battery is mainly
charged from the external power grid. The vehicle operates as a series hybrid with most of the
electricity coming from the battery. This configuration is usually used for short haul
applications such as drayage trucks. The other configuration is fuel cell dominant, in which a
full-size fuel cell is used as primary electricity source and the battery is used to provide peak
power and recouping energy from regenerative braking. Both the fuel cell and the battery are
used in parallel to provide electricity to the motor to drive the vehicle. The fuel cell dominant
configuration is most suitable for long-haul freight trucks using hydrogen as the sole energy
source. Currently there are relatively few demonstrations of hydrogen fuel cells in trucks, but a
greater number in transit buses.

5.2 Current Status

In 2009, Vision Motor Corporation developed the first hydrogen fuel cell powered Class 8 truck
- Tyrano. The Tyrano truck, shown in Figure 13, is a plug-in hybrid fuel cell electric truck
demonstrated for drayage operation in the Port of Long Beach. The Tyrano could reach 65 mph
using a 65 kW fuel cell and a 200-mile range with a standard 350-bar tank (5000 psi) carrying 20
kg hydrogen. It also had a 130 kWh battery pack with a level 2 charger. In 2011, a national
trucking company - Total Transportation Services Inc. tested the Tyrano fuel cell trucks in the
ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach in California. Unfortunately, Vision Motor filed for
bankruptcy in 2014 primarily due to its inability to make a profit. However, the demonstration
of Vision’s Tyrano trucks showed the feasibility of hydrogen PEMFCs for short and medium
range hauling in heavy-duty truck applications between port terminals and distribution
facilities. Thus hydrogen fuel cell powered trucks are an impressive option for reducing both
GHG and polluting emissions from heavy-duty trucks.

21
 Figure 13. Vision’s Tyrano plug-in fuel cell truck [Source: Vision Motor Corp]
Using improved technology for the batteries and fuel cell, a complete new design of a
fuel/battery hybrid Class 8 semi-tractor - Nikola One - was built by the Nikola Motor Company
in 2016. The Nicola One and its drivetrain arrangement are shown in Figure 14 and Figure 15,
respectively. The truck is powered by a 300 kW electric motor with electricity provided by a 320
kWh battery and a 300 kW fuel cell. It is equipped with a DC fast charging port to charge the
battery if a charging facility is available. The Nikola truck claims a range of 800-1,200 miles
depending on terrain and load, including 100-200 miles on the battery alone. The capacity of
the hydrogen tank is not stated in the description of the vehicle, but a tank carrying at least 100
kg hydrogen would be needed for range of 1,000-mile if the onboard battery is not charged
through external power sources.

Figure 14. Nikola One hydrogen fuel cell truck [Source: nikolamotor.com]

22
 Figure 15. Nikola One drivetrain arrangement [Source: nikolamotor.com]
① front radiator assembly; ② front motor gearbox; ③ power electronics; ④ battery storage
system; ⑤ chiller and air tanks; ⑥ fuel cell; ⑦ hydrogen fuel system; ⑧ rear motor gearbox; ⑨
5th wheel

The two Class 8 fuel cell truck prototypes are compared in terms of specifications and
performance in Table 3. The Vision Tyrano truck used relatively small fuel and was a battery
dominate design. The Nikola One truck has a full-size fuel cell and is a fuel cell dominate
design, which can be operated in the battery only mode for up to 200 miles. It was built from
the ground up and can outperform conventional long-haul diesel class 8 truck on the market
today. Nikola Motor has partnered with Ryder System to sell and service its fuel cell trucks at
Ryder’s nationwide locations.
Table 3. Specification and Performance Comparison of Tyrano and Nikola One
Fuel Cell Trucks Tyrano Nikola One
Motor 320 kW 2 motors with power up to 750
kW
Fuel Cell 65 kW 300 kW
Battery 130 kWh 320 kWh
Hydrogen Fuel 20 kg compressed hydrogen Not available (estimated 100 kg)
at 350 bar in compressed or liquid hydrogen
form
Refuel Time 10-15 minutes at 430 bar 15 minutes (Nikola Stations)
Charging Port Level 2 DC Fast
Range 200 miles 800 - 1,200 miles
Weight Not available 2,000 lbs lighter than a diesel
truck
Application Class 8 short-haul semi day Class 8 long-haul semi sleeper
cab cab

23
5.2 Cost
Despite important improvements in fuel cell technologies over the past decade, automotive
fuel cell systems still face challenges. Several factors may limit the potential application of fuel
cell technologies in the near term for heavy-duty vehicles. Cost, durability, energy density of
hydrogen storage, and a large vehicle assessable hydrogen refueling network are major
concerns for long-haul fuel cell electric truck applications. For hydrogen fuel cell electric trucks
to be competitive with conventional diesel trucks, costs must be reduced for all system
components, especially the fuel cell, onboard hydrogen storage, and the hydrogen fueling
stations.
According to DOE’s FY 2016 Annual Progress Report on hydrogen and fuel cells, the expected
cost of the automotive (i.e., cars, not trucks) PEMFC system is approximately $230/kW in 2016
based on current technology when manufactured at a volume of 1,000 units per year. DOE
projects that the present fuel cell system cost could be reduced to $53/kW for high volume
manufacturing at 500,000 units per year. The target cost for high volume manufacturing in
2020 is $40/kW. This cost is for automotive fuel cell systems, not heavy-duty units to be used in
trucks.

5.6 Challenges
To enable commercialization of heavy-duty fuel cell trucks, fuel cell systems must nearly meet
the durability of the stationary systems, which currently last at least 10,000 hours. For long-
haul Class 8 trucks with annual miles of 104,000 miles, with an average on-and-off highway
speed of 65 miles per hour, the annual operation would be 1600 hours and thus the fuel cell
would need at least a 8000 hours durability threshold to avoid replacement before 5 years.
There is also some question regarding the differences in the durability in trucks and passenger
cars. Based on recent tests, it appears likely that PEMFC technologies will be ready to satisfy
the durability needed to power long-haul Class 8 trucks.
Several approaches for storing hydrogen onboard the truck have been developed, including
high pressure, low temperature cryogenics, metal hydrides, absorbent carbons, etc.
Compressed hydrogen (5000-10000 psi) in carbon fiber re-enforced composite tanks and
hydrogen as a cryogenic liquid at 20 deg K in insulated tanks are the established technologies
and thus have been the main hydrogen storage technologies used onboard vehicles. Current
efforts focus on reducing the cost of the carbon fiber composite, which is approximately 75% of
the cost of the compressed hydrogen storage tank. Cryogenic hydrogen storage may be the
best approach for heavy truck applications because of its relatively high volumetric energy
density, but it requires further development in thermal insulation and engineering work on the
various system tradeoffs including energy for liquefaction and boil-off effects [DOE, Melaina,
Stetson]. Table 4 lists the DOE targets and current status of various hydrogen storage
technologies.

24
Table 4. Current Status of Hydrogen Storage Technologies [Source: Stetson]

* projected at 500,000 units per year (light-duty vehicles)

The 2020 energy density and cost targets for automotive onboard hydrogen storage systems is
1.8 kWh/kg system (5.5 wt%), 1.3 kWh/L system (0.04 kg H2/L), and $10/kWh ($333/kg stored
hydrogen capacity) respectively. A long-haul fuel cell truck would need to carry at least 70 kg
hydrogen (95% usable) for an maximum daily range of 500 miles. The hydrogen storage unit
would be large (1600 kg, 3000 L) and cost about $35,000 based on the values given in Table 4
for the 10000 psi hydrogen storage tank. The size and cost of hydrogen storage is a major
problem for fuel cells in long-haul trucks. Little information is available on the characteristics of
hydrogen storage tanks developed for the truck applications.

California has most of the nation’s existing hydrogen fuel facilities. These hydrogen stations
typically dispense hydrogen at 1-2 kg per minute, primarily designed for fueling light-duty
passenger cars. There are no hydrogen stations for heavy-duty truck applications at highway
truck stops. Currently there are three ongoing fuel cell electric bus demonstration projects in
California [Eudy]: Alameda-Contra Costa Transit (13 buses), SunLine Transit (4 buses), and
University of California Irvine (1 bus). Only AC Transit’s stations can fill hydrogen at rates up to 5
kg per minute. Hydrogen fueling stations could be scaled up for trucking applications including
fueling stations at highway truck stops and in commercial trucking fleet depots. However,
deployment of hydrogen stations for trucking applications would take time to construct and
require large investment. A light-duty vehicle hydrogen station with a fueling capacity of 180 kg
of hydrogen per day presently costs about $2 million, which is about $11,000 per kg hydrogen

25
per day. This per-capacity capital cost could be reduced to $7,000 per kg per day for larger
stations due to the economies of scale for larger stations.

6. Comparison of Three Zero-Emission Highway

Trucking Technologies
6.1 Modeling Concerns and Inputs
Zero-emission long-haul trucks that employ dynamic inductive and catenary electric charging
and hydrogen fuel cell technologies have many similarities. All three technologies use electric
traction to propel trucks and require a battery buffer system. However, the concepts differ in
the use of the energy carrier and the power sources. The fuel cell trucks carry hydrogen
onboard and employ the fuel cell to convert hydrogen into electricity; the catenary electric
trucks and dynamic charging electric trucks are powered by external power sources. In order to
compare these technologies, a study was performed to estimate the truck capital cost and the
operations and maintenance (O&M) and related infrastructure costs for each of the
technologies. An Excel based cost spreadsheet was developed for calculating major component
costs and O&M costs of the zero-emission trucking technologies and assessing the capital and
O&M costs of the related infrastructure.
Fully electrified highway systems could provide continuous energy transfer to the trucks.
Electrifying highways for long-haul freight trucks requires large investments in stringing
overhead catenary power lines for catenary electric trucks and embedding wireless power
transfer strips underground on major highways. Considering multiple pathways toward zero-
emission freight transport and possible low infrastructure utilization, partial electrification of
highways could reduce the investment costs significantly. Electrification is often constrained by
specific requirements. For example, catenary electric trucks and high voltage catenary power
supply systems may create clearance issues, especially under bridges and tunnels. Some
highway segments may not be suitable for installing source coils in the road for wireless
inductive charging. These special needs would significantly increase the cost of electrifying
highways. Partially electrifying highways may avoid some infrastructure limitations.
Figure 16 illustrates the concept of a partially electrified highway. The electrified highway
consists of electrified zones and non-electrified zones with fixed lengths. Each electrified zone
requires a power distribution substation, which steps down the high transmission voltage of
115 kV to a 60 kV line and provides power up to 80 MVA. The electrified zone is further broken
down into smaller traction segments which are about one mile long. A traction substation rated
for 1 MW, consisting of a transformer and several rectifiers or inverters, is placed to serve in
each traction segment to convert high voltage AC power to 750 V DC power for the catenary
power wires or roadside wireless power transfer transmitters. The ideal length of electrified
zones is between 15 and 40 miles, depending on traffic flow. In the electrified zone, electric

26
trucks operate in driving-while-charging mode, and the onboard batteries are fully charged and
the truck is powered by external power sources via overhead catenary lines or wireless
inductive power systems embedded in the road. In the non-electrification zone, the electric
truck runs on the onboard batteries. The onboard battery allows the truck to smoothly move
from one electrified zone of a highway to another over a long journey.

Length of Electrified Highway

External power propels vehicles Onboard Batteries

and charge onboard batteries propel vehicles

Length of Electrified Zone Length of Non-Electrified

Electrified Zone Non-Electrified Zone Electrified Zone Non-Electrified Zone

Distribution Substation 1 Distribution Substation 2 Distribution Substation n

Electrified Zone

Traction segment 1 Traction segment 2 Traction segment 3 Traction segment m

Traction Substation 1 Traction Substation 2 Traction Substation m

115 kV to 60 kV Line
Distribution Substation

Figure 16. Scenario layout for partially electrified highway

27
Roadway electrification coverage is defined as

𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑐𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒
𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ 𝑜𝑓 𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑒𝑑 𝑧𝑜𝑛𝑒
=
𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ 𝑜𝑓 𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑒𝑑 𝑧𝑜𝑛𝑒 + 𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ 𝑜𝑓 𝑛𝑜𝑛 𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑒𝑑 𝑧𝑜𝑛𝑒
Since deploying catenary lines and embedding wireless inductive source coils dominate the
capital cost of catenary and dynamic charging systems, the roadway electrification coverage
affects the capital cost of the catenary and dynamic charging infrastructure. The lower the
electrification coverage, the lower the infrastructure capital cost. However, lower electrification
coverage requires larger onboard battery storage (kWh) and higher battery charging power
(kW). The higher charging power may be several times of average truck traction power, which
requires larger space for mounting receiver pads for dynamic charging.
Hydrogen storage is a crucial barrier for adopting hydrogen fuel cell freight trucks. Current
hydrogen storage systems are short of meeting DOE 2020 target cost of $10/kWh and target
performance of 1.3 kWh/L system (0.04 kg H2/L) and 1.8 kWh/kg system (5.5 wt.% hydrogen).
Due to limited onboard space and cost considerations, hydrogen fuel cell trucks will likely carry
enough hydrogen only for 500 miles or less. Therefore, development of hydrogen fuel station
infrastructure along major highways would be necessary to support hydrogen fuel cell freight
trucks. The layout of hydrogen fueling stations along highways is shown in Figure 17.

H2 Station Interval

H2 Station 1 H2 Station 2 H2 Station m

Hydrogen Highway

Length of Hydrogen Highway

Figure 17. Layout of hydrogen fueling stations

According to Caltrans 2015 annual average daily truck traffic data, the major freight corridors in
California carry several thousand trucks with 5+ axles per day. A daily traffic flow of 5,000 Class
8 freight trucks with an average speed of 65 mph is considered in analyzing average
infrastructure power demand and daily energy consumption. Table 5 shows major parameters
and key characteristics of three types of zero-emission long-haul trucks and their related
infrastructure. It also shows the configuration and power and energy consumption of the three
types of zero-emission trucks. A conventional diesel truck with a fuel economy of 8.1 mpg was
also included for comparison. The energy consumption of the fuel cell electric long-haul truck is
higher due to the lower fuel cell efficiency of 65% in comparison to the catenary electric and
28
dynamic charging electric truck. The electricity consumption of the dynamic charging electric
long-haul truck is 2.9 kWh/mile, higher than that of the catenary electric truck, 2.55 kWh/mile
because of lower dynamic charging efficiency of 85% for a 17-cm air gap. These energy
demands cover nearly all energy uses of the trucks, although heating/cooling is neglected as it
is generally a very small share of truck energy use.

6.2 Truck Capital Costs and O&M Expenses

The truck capital costs depend to a large degree on the costs of the truck glider and the main
components of the powertrain. A simplified cost breakdown analysis was used to calculate the
costs of zero-emission trucks and diesel trucks for year 2030, as shown in Table 5. For the
hydrogen fuel cell technology, the power sources are the fuel cell and the buffer battery. The
fuel cell provides average continuous power and the battery supplies high peak power demand.
Long-haul fuel cell trucks need a 300 kW fuel cell and carry 72 kg hydrogen for covering a range
of 500 miles at 65 mph. A 50 kWh battery is chosen for buffering peak power demand in an
optimized efficiency system. Our truck cost analysis shows that a hydrogen fuel cell truck in
2030 would cost $176K compared to a conventional diesel truck, $142K.

For catenary electric trucks and dynamic charging electric trucks, the onboard battery is
charged on the electrified zones and depleted during operation on the non-electrified zones.
Hence, the battery is sized according to the length of the electrified zones, roadway
electrification coverage, and traction power demand. Based on 2.5 kWh/mi truck electricity
consumption and 20-mile charging/non-charging segments, a 50 kWh battery should be
sufficient for the vehicles to travel on pure battery power when not operating on grid power. In
addition, another 50 kWh is included for the truck to travel to its terminal and other locations
off the electrified highway. Thus a 100 kWh battery pack is assumed.
For a partially electrified highway with the electrified zone of 20 miles and the electrification
coverage of 50%, the costs of a catenary truck and a dynamic charging truck are $143K and
$144K, respectively, which are competitive with the price of a conventional diesel truck. In the
cost analysis, the cost of heavy-duty fuel cell is taken as $80/kW which is two times the DOE
estimate of the cost of fuel cells for passenger cars in 2030 and the cost of the hydrogen
storage is taken as $500/kg H2 as shown in Table 4 for high pressure hydrogen tanks in volume
production. The cost of the batteries was taken as $300/kWh which is about a factor of two
higher than is presently projected for batteries in passenger car EVs.
Annual fuel expenses and maintenance costs of freight trucks depend on fuel economy, duty
cycles, fuel types, and powertrain configurations. The annual O&M costs of long-haul trucks
with annual mileage of 104,000 miles are considered and compared in Table 5.
The cost of hydrogen depends on how hydrogen is produced. Production of hydrogen from
water electrolysis using renewable power is the preferred long-run approach since this

29
hydrogen could be very low carbon if the electricity from which it is produced is very low
carbon. However, H2 production costs from electrolysis could be considerably higher than from
natural gas reforming. In the near term even hydrogen from reforming may cost $10/kg or
more depending on fuel source, scale and other factors. Electrolysis could be $20/kg or more.
However with increased scale, experience and learning factors, costs are likely to drop. Ogden
(2018) estimates a long-run “built-out” range of $5-8/kg for hydrogen from electrolysis,
including the price of electricity and all costs associated with producing, shipping, storing, and
delivering this H2 to vehicles as liquefied H2. A 2030 dispensed hydrogen cost from electrolysis
of $7/kg in 2030 is adopted as a base case estimate for this study.
The yearly O&M expenses of hydrogen fuel cell trucks are about $82K, approximately 36%
higher in comparison to the diesel truck due to high fuel cell efficiency and low maintenance
cost. The annual costs to operate a Class 8 long-haul catenary electric truck and dynamic
charging electric truck are taken to be approximately $48k - $54K, about 10%-21% lower
compared to the diesel truck because of low electricity price and low maintenance cost. We
also define a 5-year truck cost to incorporate the resale value of trucks after 5 years. A 2%
monthly depreciation rate is assumed. The resale value of H2 fuel cell, catenary electric, and
dynamic charging electric trucks are further scaled down to 75% to reflect the uncertainty of
their resale values due to new technology. We use 5-year truck costs as truck capital costs.
Since electrified zones and roadway electrification coverage affects battery size, reducing the
length of the electrified zones and increasing electrification coverage would reduce the costs of
catenary electric trucks and dynamic charging electric trucks. In this analysis, the electrified
zone with fixed length of 20 miles is used. Figure 18 shows that the electric truck cost varies
with the percentage of roadway electrification coverage. Catenary electric trucks and dynamic
inductive charging electric trucks can be owned for about the cost of conventional diesel trucks
if the roadway electrification coverage reaches 98% and 87%, respectively.

Figure 18. Vehicle costs vary with road electrification coverage

30
Table 5. Model Assumptions
Long-Haul Truck Configuration and Power Demand and Energy Consumption
Conventional Catenary Dynamic
H2 Fuel Cell
Long-Haul Truck Technology Diesel electric Charging
300-450 kW
----- ----- -----
Engine (400-600 hp)
125 gal.
----- ----- -----
Fuel Tank (125-300 gal)

SCR + DOC + DPF ----- ----- -----

Aftertreatment
Transmission 10 speed 2 speed 2 speed 2 speed
Fuel Cell (kW) ----- 300 ----- -----
Hydrogen Storage (kg H2) ----- 72 ----- -----
Battery (kWh) ----- 50 100 100
Motor & Controller (kW) ----- 350 350 350
WPT Receiver Capacity (kW) ----- ----- ----- 320
Active Pantograph Capacity
----- ----- 320 -----
(kW)
Range (miles) 500 500 500 500
Average traction power (kW) 160 160 160 160
Power demand from grid (kW) ----- ----- 327 376
Truck efficiency @ 65mph
(mile/gal or equivalent) 8.1 10.6 16.2 16.2
H2 truck efficiency (kgH2/mile) ----- 0.11 ----- -----
Catenary/WPT truck efficiency
----- ----- 2.5 2.5
(kWh/mi)
Energy demand from grid
----- ----- 2.6 2.9
(kWh/mi)
VEHICLE COMPONENT COST
Fuel_Cell_Cost ($/kW) 80
H2_Storage_Cost ($/kgH2) ----- 500 ----- -----
Battery_Cost ($/kWh) ----- 300 300 300
Motor_Cost ($/kW) ----- 15 15 15
Motor_Ctrl_Cost ($/kW) ----- 10 10 10
WPT_Receiver_Cost ($/kW) ----- 25 25 25
FUEL ENERGY DENSITY
33.3
38.7
(kWh/kg
(kWh/gal diesel)
Diesel_Energy_Density Hydrogen)
VEHICLE & COMPONENT PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS
FE_Diesel 8.1 ----- ----- -----
Fuel_Cell_Efficiency ----- 65% ----- -----

31
WPT_Efficiency ----- ----- ----- 85%
Catenary_Recifier_Efficiency ----- ----- 98% -----
Battery_kWh ----- 50 100 100
INFRASTRUCTURE & TRAFFIC FLOW
Roadway_Catenary_Coverage ----- ----- 50% -----
Roadway_WPT_Coverage ----- ----- ----- 50%
Daily_Truck_Traffic (Truck/day) 5000 5000 5000 5000
Truck_Flow_Rate (truck/mile) 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2
Daily_VMT (mile) 500 500 500 500
Fuel_Station_Intervals (mile) 50 50 ----- -----
Catenary_Power_Substation_No ----- ----- 13 -----
WPT_Power_Substation_No ----- ----- ----- 13
Power_Transformer_Unit_Cost ----- -----
14,000 14,000
($/MVA)
Power_Substation_Cost_Factor ----- ----- 4 4
Catenary_System/WPT ----- ----- -----
2,300,000
Unit_Cost ($/lane mile)
Catenary_Converter_Unit_Cost ----- ----- -----
10
($/kW)
Catenary_Pantograph_Cost (per ----- ----- -----
3,500
unit)
WPT_Zone_Length (mile) ----- ----- ----- 20
Catenery_Zone_Length (mile) ----- ----- 20 -----
WPT_Receiver_kW_Max (kW) ----- ----- ----- 500
FUEL PRICES
Diesel_Price ($/gal) 3.776 ----- ----- -----
Hydrogen_Price ($/kg) ----- 6 ----- -----
Electricity_Price ($/kWh) ----- ----- 0.15 0.15
Truck Mileage (Long-Haul)
Yearly_Mileage (mi/year) 104,000 104,000 104,000 104,000
Daily_Mileage (mi/day) 500 500 500 500
Truck_Speed (mph) 65 65 65 65
Truck Capital Cost (year 2030)
Glider $95,539 $95,539 $95,539 $95,539
Engine $21,881 ----- ----- -----
Aftertreatment $15,750 ----- ----- -----
Transmission $8,549 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000
Fuel cell ----- $24,000 ----- -----
Hydrogen storage ----- $30,395 ----- -----
Battery ----- $15,000 $30,000 $30,000
Active pantograph & converter ----- ----- $6,500
wireless charge receiver ----- ----- ----- $8,000

32
 Motor and controller ----- $8,750 $8,750 $8,750
Truck Cost $141,719 $175,684 $142,789 $144,289
5-year truck cost $99,550 $136,477 $110,924 $112,089
Truck Yearly O&M Expenses
Hydrogen ($/kg) ----- 6 ----- -----
Electricity Prices ($/kWh) ----- ----- 0.15 0.15
Fuel Prices ($/DGE) 3.78 6.97 5.81 5.81
Fuel cost per mile ($/mile) 0.47 $0.55 0.38 0.44
Yearly fuel cost ($) $48,538 $57,200 $39,796 $45,882
Truck Maintenance Cost
$0.07 0.05 0.035 0.035
($/mile)
Truck tires ($/miles) $0.04 $0.04 $0.04 $0.04
Yearly Maintenance cost
$11,856 $9,776 $8,216 $8,216
($/year)
Yearly Truck O&M cost $60,394 $66,976 $48,012 $54,098
Truck Costs per mile
Capital Cost per mile $0.191 $0.263 $0.213 $0.216
Energy Cost per mile (does not
$0.467 $0.548 $0.383 $0.441
include infrastructure cost)
Maintenance Cost per mile $0.070 $0.050 $0.035 $0.035
Total Costs per mile $0.728 $0.861 $0.631 $0.692
Notes: Costs do not include infrastructure cost (shown in Figures 1 and 21) or any applicable
tax. The analysis is done without taxes.

6.3 Infrastructure Capital and O&M Costs

The economic feasibility of zero-emission long-haul trucking technologies for large-scale
applications depends on not only the vehicle cost but also on the cost of the required
infrastructure. Since catenary electric freight trucks and dynamic inductive charging freight
trucks are only being demonstrated for short distances, it is difficult and uncertain to assess the
required adaptations of the existing infrastructure and the cost/investments needed to electrify
highways at a large scale. Hydrogen infrastructure for passenger cars and for transit buses has
been constructed, but hydrogen refueling infrastructure along highways for heavy-duty trucks
has not been demonstrated yet. Therefore, robust cost figures for developing and maintaining
these infrastructures for electrified heavy-duty trucks are not available.

6.3.1 Catenary Infrastructure

Since catenary electric trucks could use similar power supply systems for electric trolley buses
and light rail transits, the past unit price for similar light rail catenary systems was adjusted for
time and power capacity and used for approximately estimating the infrastructure cost of the
catenary system for long-haul trucks. Light rail catenary systems cost approximately $2.3M per
route mile for double tracks with one set of catenary supports. $4.6M per route mile (one
electrified lane on each direction) is simply employed for estimating the cost of catenary

33
electric truck power supply systems in the analysis. The dynamic charging infrastructure could
cost up to $12.9M per mile for a fully electrified highway with an average load of 1.5 MW/mile.
Considering partially electrification and mass production, the cost of inductive charging could
be reduced to $6.1M-$7.4M per mile. A moderate cost estimate of $6.4 million/route mile is
used for the dynamic charging system. Maintenance costs of overhead catenary systems and in-
road dynamic charging systems are estimated to be about 1% of the initial investment costs.

6.3.2 Hydrogen Infrastructure

Regarding hydrogen infrastructure there are many pathways to develop hydrogen fueling
stations, hydrogen infrastructure costs for refueling heavy-duty trucks are difficult to estimate.
Some studies estimate the costs of the hydrogen infrastructure based on the number of fuel
cell vehicles that are to be served. For example, the hydrogen infrastructure cost is about
$5,000,000 for serving 40 fuel cell buses and its O&M cost is approximate $5,000/bus/year. But
hydrogen infrastructure to serve freight trucks will be large stations with fueling capacity of
several thousand kg hydrogen per day. Their costs are highly dependent on scale and fueling
capacity. In this study, the DOE H2A model was used to estimate the cost of a compressed
hydrogen station with fueling capacity of 3,000 kg, which is approximately $20M. The costs for
a station that produces and stores liquid H2 from electrolysis would be somewhat higher. The
projected construction cost for each truck fuel station was scaled up to reach the needed
capacity to serve 5000 trucks daily over 500 miles. Spacing the stations 50 miles apart, 10
stations would be needed. These are roughly estimated to cost $75,000,000 each, including all
aspects of converting electricity to hydrogen, liquefying and storing that hydrogen, and
dispensing to the vehicles.Operational and maintenance costs of hydrogen infrastructure are
related to the hydrogen delivered. A fixed O&M cost of $0.27/kg is applied to hydrogen
infrastructure.

6.3.3 Infrastructure summary

A 500-mile highway section with 50% electrification coverage and traffic flow of 5,000 Class 8
truck per day was analyzed for each zero-emission trucking technology. The estimated
infrastructure costs and O&M costs are shown in Table 6. If all trucks were fuel cell running on
hydrogen generated on site by electrolysis, the 10 needed stations would cost a combined
$750M. Yearly O&M costs would be $25M. If all trucks are catenary vehicles on a highway with
50% electrification scenario of one lane in each direction, the catenary system cost and the
O&M expenses will be $1,150M and $11.5M, respectively. The infrastructure cost of equipping
two highway lanes with 50% electrification coverage in-road dynamic charging is estimated to
be $1,600M with annual O&M cost of $16M. As shown at the bottom of the table, the net
effects are on the order of $0.11 per mile for hydrogen, $0.13 for catenaries, and $0.16 for
dynamic charging.
Since the roadside installation costs of catenary systems and dynamic inductive charging
systems dominate the total infrastructure cost, the capital cost of building partially electrified
highway is approximately proportional to the total length of electrified zones, although savings

34
would accrue if more difficult-to-electrify sections (such as in tunnels) could be avoided. Here
we assume linear scaling; Figure 19 and Figure 20 show the capital and O&M costs of electrified
highways varying with roadway electrification coverage. Partial roadway electrification could
significantly reduce the capital cost of electrifying highways. With more robust data available
from demonstrations, a nonlinear cost model could be developed to obtain more accurate road
installation costs for various road electrification coverages.

Figure 19. Infrastructure capital costs vary with road electrification coverage

Figure 20. Infrastructure O&M costs vary with road electrification coverage

35
Table 6. Infrastructure Capital Cost for a 500-Mile Zero-Emission Highway Section

Infrastructure Cost (year 2030)

Dynamic
Conv. Diesel H2 Fuel cell Catenary inductive
Truck electric electric charge
Infrastrucutre Cost
Useful Life (years) 20 20 20 20
Diesel station capital cost ($) 0 ----- ----- -----
Hydrogen station capital cost ($) ----- 75,000,000 -----
Traction power supply system
Traction power distribution system
Catenary system ($/route mile) ----- ----- 4,600,000 -----
Dynamic wireless charger ($/route
mile) ----- ----- ----- 6,400,000
Daily fuel/electricity demand (DGE) 308,642 236,628 164,795 189,998
Daily h2 demand (kg) 275,000
Daily electricity demand (kWh) 6,377,551 7,352,941
Total Electric power demand (kW) 261,643 301,659
Substation power rating (kW) 20,931 24,133
Power supply cost ($) $14,652,015 $16,892,911
Catenary Power distribution cost($) $320,000,000
Embedded WPT cost ($)
No. of Fuel Stations/Electrified road
Zones 10 10 13 13
Daily Station Diesel Supply
(gallon/station) 30,864
Daily Station H2 Supply (kg/station) 27,500
Electric Power Demand (kW/Zone) 20,931 24,133
Infrastructure Capital Cost (500 miles $1,150,000,00 $1,600,000,00
Double Lane) $0 $750,000,000 0 0
Infrastructure O&M Expenses
O&M costs ($/dge) 0.02 0.27
Annual O&M costs ($/route mile) $46,000 $64,000
Infrastructure Maintenance Cost
($/year) $2,253,086 $24,485,664 $11,500,000 $16,000,000
Infrastructure Costs per Mile
Capital cost per mile $0.000 $0.072 $0.111 $0.154
O&M cost per mile $0.004 $0.040 $0.022 $0.031

36
7. Results
The final stage of the analysis is to pull together the full range of costs – vehicle capital costs,
operating and fuel costs, along with the infrastructure capital costs and operating costs. This
continues to be done on the basis of our sample 500 mile stretch of road, with 5,000 trucks per
day traveling the stretch.
The relative vehicle, O&M, and energy costs are shown in Figure 21 on a per-mile basis,
reflecting all the calculations in the preceding sections. The relative costs would vary with
system size and the number of vehicles using the system, as well as with any of the other cost
assumptions used in the analysis. In addition, the analysis is done not including any tax on
vehicles or fuels, so should be considered a “resource cost” comparison. Taxes, such as CO2
based taxes, could affect the relative attractiveness of the options.

In our base scenario, the average cost per mile of the catenary and inductive charge
technologies is relatively close to those for conventional diesel trucks, with all between 70 and
100 cents per mile. Hydrogen fuel cells are somewhat more expensive, due mostly to the high
cost of electrolysis (with overall about a $0.06/kg cost of producing and delivering the fuel to
vehicles, including energy and refueling station costs). The high energy infrastructure costs for
catenary and dynamic charging systems are fully offset by lower energy costs from the use of
electricity rather than hydrogen (reflecting the efficiency advantages of electricity). The
relatively high vehicle capital cost (purchase price) of fuel cell trucks also contributes to their
higher overall cost, but much less than the fuel cost.

37
 Figure 21. Relative cost per mile of different technologies in the base scenario

8. Sensitivity Analysis
One of the major uncertainties in the analysis is the cost and price of fuel, including diesel
(indeed something that varies almost daily in the real world), hydrogen, which will depend on
many factors, including the size and maturity of the system, and electricity, which is uncertain
in the future due to introduction of new types of generation capacity and the possibility of
inelastic demand. To examine how the uncertainty of these three fuel costs impacts the overall
relative costs of the different technology options, a sensitivity analysis was conducted, as
shown in Figure 22. All prices in the analysis have excluded taxes.
As shown, varying each of the fuel types up or down within a reasonable range creates the
possibility that any of them could become quite competitive, or not. The base diesel fuel price
of $3.78/DGE in 2030 was varied based on U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) cases.
Besides their base case, EIA has two scenarios of transportation diesel price in 2030 for the
Pacific region in 2030: low oil price ($2.36/DGE) and high oil price ($6.09/DGE). Per mile costs of
conventional diesel truck with the diesel fuel price assumptions of $2.36/DGE, $3.78/DGE, and
$6.09/DGE are shown in Figure 22.

38
Diesel price has a major influence on per mile cost of conventional diesel trucks. With the low
price assumption, the cost of conventional diesel trucks is $0.56/mi, the lowest among the four
technologies. However, if $6.09/DGE is assumed, the cost of conventional diesel trucks is
$1.01/mi, the highest among the four technologies (using base prices for H2 and electricity).
The base, dispensed hydrogen cost of $6/kg in 2030 was also adjusted using a lower and higher
assumption, $4/kg and $8/kg. The higher price (or even higher) may be more common before
large scale mature hydrogen refueling infrastructures are in place. Clearly, hydrogen price has a
considerable influence on per-mile cost of H2 fuel cell trucks. With the $4/kg assumption, the
cost of H2 fuel cell trucks is $0.75/mi. However, if $8/kg is assumed, the cost of H2 fuel cell
trucks is $1.19/mi, 59% higher.
Finally, we consider variants on the base price of electricity in 2030, which is taken as
$0.15/kWh. We examined a case where the price is $0.10/kWh and one where it is $0.20/kWh.
Per mile costs of catenary truck and inductive charging truck with the electricity price
assumptions of $0.10/kWh, $0.15/kWh, and $0.20/kWh are shown in Figure 22.
Electricity price has a moderate influence on per-mile costs of catenary truck and inductive
charging truck. From the lowest assumption, $0.10/kWh, to the highest assumption,
$0.20/kWh, the per-mile costs of catenary truck and inductive charging truck increase 40.1%
(from $0.64/mi to $0.89/mi) and 40.3% (from $0.73/mi to $1.02/mi), respectively.

Figure 22.Sensitivity analysis of cost

Three diesel prices (low: $2.356/DGE, medium: $3.776/DGE, high $6.086/DGE), three hydrogen prices (low: $4/kg,
medium: $6/kg, high: $8/kg) and three electricity prices (low: $0.1/kWh, medium: $0.15/kWh, high: $0.2/kWh)

Another major uncertainty in the study is daily truck traffic. Depending on the location of
highways, daily truck traffic can be as low as sevearal hundreds and as high as almost ten

39
thousands. To see how this uncertainty affects the per-mile costs of each technology, a
sensitivity analysis was performed for daily truck traffic (using base energy prices). The per-mile
costs for each technology when daily truck traffic varies from 1 thousand to 10 thousand are
shown in Figure 23.

Figure 23. Sensitivity analysis of daily truck traffic. Daily truck traffic ranges from 1 thousand
to 10 thousands
The per-mile costs for diesel and H2 fuel cell trucks are independent of daily truck traffic, since
the hydrogen refueling station costs are fully scalable (each additional station can be added as
needed). However, the per-mile costs for catenary and dynamic charging trucks start very high
since the system must be built even for the first truck. These costs decrease with daily truck
traffic: with high enough daily truck traffic, their costs per mile drop to around the same level as
diesel trucks.
As another form of sensitivity analysis, we created “tornado” diagrams comparing two
technologies at a time as shown in Figure 24. These figures show that varying each of a number
of assumption be plus or minus 20% compared to the reference case value can have very
different impacts on the relative cost of the two technologies.

40
Figure 24. Changes in cost per mile as a function of changing input assumptions. Comparisons
of H2 fuel cell vs diesel, catenary vs diesel, dynamic charging vs diesel, and H2 fuel cell vs
catenary
It is clear that energy price have big impacts on the relative cost per mile as expected. Individual
truck VMT is also an important factor as the more trucks travel the less infrastructure
contributes to cost per mile. Daily truck traffic also has a considerable impact. More trucks
operating on the stretch leads to higher total VMT and thus has a similar effect with individual
truck VMT. Maybe quite surprisingly, vehicle cost variations do not have particularly big
impacts, due to the large total VMT that vehicle cost is divided by to obtain cost per mile. These
graphs suggest that the variations of one or more input factors could drastically change the
relative cost per mile between two technologies.

9. Conclusions
Zero-emission long-haul trucking technologies are being developed that can play a critical role
in achieving California’s climate change goals and virtually eliminating air pollution from freight
vehicles. Hydrogen fuel cell, catenary electric and dynamic inductive charging technologies are
being demonstrated in small scale projects worldwide. The zero-emission truck technologies
were reviewed in detail in this study and vehicle and infrastructure costs for each of the
technologies assessed. Vehicle configurations for long-haul applications with a daily mileage of
500 miles and annual mileage of 104,000 miles were analyzed to determine vehicle capital and
O&M costs. A 500-mile section of major freight corridors with daily truck flow of 5,000 Class 8

41
trucks was analyzed to estimate the infrastructure and O&M costs. The cost inputs and results
are relevant for 2030.
The following conclusions follow from the results given in the overall analysis and sensitivity
analysis.

• There are significant technical and infrastructure challenges associated with all three
technologies, though hydrogen fuel cell and catenary systems have been proven in a
range of applications, well beyond the level of dynamic inductive charging systems.
Whether fuel cells in a heavy duty, long haul application can achieve the needed
durability is not a fully resolved question.
• The capital costs of the vehicles relative to diesel trucks, with 500 miles range, are
lowest for catenary electric and dynamic inductive charged trucks and highest for fuel
cell trucks, though the differences are not critical in the overall cost comparison.
• When operating on highways 50% electrified with 20-mile electrified zones. The costs of
catenary and inductive charge trucks are no more than 20% more expensive than the
conventional diesel fueled truck.
• The hydrogen fuel cell trucks have the highest fuel costs of the technologies studied,
due mainly to the use of electrolytic hydrogen for a very low carbon scenario. This
system is significantly less efficient than a catenary system or even than an inductive
charging system, so significantly more electricity is needed to power the same number
of trucks and distance.
• The fuel cost of the dynamic inductive charging truck is 15% higher in comparison to the
catenary electric trucks. This relates mainly to the higher losses of wireless power
transfer.
Building truck accessible hydrogen stations and highway electric charging infrastructure
requires massive investments. At this time, it is difficult to fully assess the cost of fueling and
charging infrastructure for the zero-emission long-haul trucking technologies. Better estimates
of the cost of the infrastructure and how this scales will be possible after more and larger
demonstrations of the technologies are completed.
Our preliminary calculations show that catenary infrastructure requires the lowest capital costs
but it is only suitable for heavy-duty trucks and excludes passenger cars due to unrealistic long
pantographs. The in-road dynamic inductive charging electrification cost is approximately 40%
higher than the catenary system. In-road dynamic inductive charging infrastructure could
theoretically be accessible to all vehicle types. Hydrogen infrastructure is even more flexible,
allowing vehicles to travel in a full radius “off highway” around the stations, with much more
range “autonomy” than the electric trucks considered in this analysis.
Chicken-or-egg issues are very important in determining the viability of these technologies. In
the near- to mid-term, electrifying an entire state or regional highway system or deploying large
hydrogen stations at many truck stops would require very large investments even though there

42
could initially be few zero-emission long-haul trucks in use. Low utilization would make it very
difficult to justify the high investment costs.
In the longer-term, electrifying highways in the major freight corridors could become
economically attractive if the costs of providing the needed infrastructure and, in the case of
hydrogen, the cost of electrolysis, prove to be lower than currently estimated. The study
indicates that hydrogen fuel cell vehicles could be the most attractive zero-emission technology
for general long-haul freight, but the economics of that technology depends on lowering the
cost of fuel cell systems, hydrogen storage onboard the vehicle, and especially achieving
relatively low cost hydrogen for consumers ($4/kg or lower), along with demonstrating the
required durability of heavy-duty fuel cells. The economics of fuel cells and cost of the
hydrogen fuel will be closely connected to the mass marketing of light-duty fuel cell vehicles.

Overall, the analysis here indicates that the various technology option all have the possibility to
be cost-effective under certain conditions and assumptions. An important next step would be
to expand the analysis to a full regional study to better estimate a full system set of costs, with
data on how scale up may provide some non-linear cost reductions. Additional testing and
demonstration projects with the individual technologies and systems, to improve the cost
estimates, is also needed.

43
References
Akerman, P., Birkner, M., Lehmann, M., Demonstrating a System for Efficient and Sustainable
Road Freight Based on Dynamic Power Supply, 6th European Transport Research Conference,
Warsaw, Poland, 18-21, April 2016
American Trucking Associations, http://www.trucking.org/
APPM Management Consultants, The Inductive Charging Quick Scan - An exploratory study of
inductive charging opportunities and potential in the Netherlands, 2014

Boer, E.D., Aarnink, S., Kleiner, F., Pagenkopf, J., Zero emissions trucks - An overview of state-of-
the-art technologies and their potential, Delft Report. July 2013
Berger, R., Fuel Cell Electric Buses – Potential for Sustainable Public Transport in Europe.
September 2015

Brecher, A. and Arthur, D., Review and Evaluation of Wireless Power Transfer (WPT) for Electric
Transit Applications, FTA Report No. 0060. AUGUST 2014
Caltrans, 2015 Annual Average Daily Truck Traffic on the California State Highway System, 2015
CARB, Cost Model Discussion with ACT Cost Subgroup, August 23, 2016
CARB report, 2016 Annual Evaluation of Hydrogen Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle Deployment and
Hydrogen Fuel Station Network Development. July 2016
CARB, Technology Assessment: Medium- and Heavy-Duty Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles, November
2015
Chen, F., Taylor, N., Kringos, N., Electrification of roads: Opportunities and challenges, Applied
Energy 150, 109-119, 2015
Chopra, S. and Bauer, P., Driving Range Extension of EV With On-Road Contactless Power
Transfer—A Case Study, IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, 60(1), 329-338. January
2013

Deflorio, F.P., Castello, L., Pinna, I. et al. “Charge while driving” for electric vehicles: road traffic
modeling and energy assessment. J. Mod. Power Syst. Clean Energy (2015) 3: 277.
doi:10.1007/s40565-015-0109-z
Deflorio F., Guglielmi, P., Pinna, I., Castello, L., Marfull, S., Modeling and analysis of wireless
“Charge While Driving” operations for fully electric vehicles, Transportation Research Procedia
5 (2015 ) 161 – 174
DOE Fuel Cell Technologies Office Multi-Year Research, Development, and Demonstration Plan,
Section 3.3 Hydrogen Storage, 2015

44
DOE Hydrogen Storage Cost Analysis, DOE Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Program FY2016 Annual
Progress Report. 2016
DOE Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Program Overview. FY 2016 Annual Progress Report, 2016

England Highways Agency, Preparing the strategic road network for electric vehicles, 2015
Eudy, L., Post, M., and Jeffers, M. Fuel Cell Buses in U.S. Transit Fleets: Current Status 2016.
Technical Report: NREL/TP-5400-67097. November 2016
Fuller, J., Wireless charging in California: Range, recharge, and vehicle electrification,
Transportation Research Part C 67 (2016) 343–356
Gladstein, Neandross & Associates, Zero-Emission Catenary Hybrid Truck Market Study, March
8, 2012
Highways England, Feasibility study: Powering electric vehicles on England’s major roads,
28/07/2015
Impullitti, J., Zero Emission Heavy-Duty Truck Technology: Fuel Cell & Wayside Power,
September 1, 2016
Impullitti, J., SCAQMD Catenary Truck Project Presentation, CEC Merit Review, Fuels and
Transportation Merit Review. Dec. 2, 2015

Isaac, R., Fulton, L., Propulsion Systems for 21st Century Rail, Transportation Research Procedia,
2017
Jang, Y.J., Jeong, S., and Lee, M.S., Initial Energy Logistics Cost Analysis for Stationary, Quasi-
Dynamic, and Dynamic Wireless Charging Public Transportation Systems, Energies 2016, 9, 4823

Jeong, S., Jang, Y.J. and Kum, D., Economic Analysis of the Dynamic Charging Electric Vehicle,
IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, 20(11), 6368 - 6377, 2015
Lu, X., Wang, P., Niyato, D., Kim, D.L. and Han, Z., Wireless Charging Technologies:
Fundamentals, Standards, and Network Applications, IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials,
18(2), 1413 - 1452, 2016
Lykogianni, G.M., Österlind, M., An Electrified Road Future - A feasibility study of Electric Road
Systems (ERS) for the logistic sector in Sweden, 2014
Melaina, M. and Penev, M., Hydrogen Station Cost Estimates - Comparing Hydrogen Station
Cost Calculator Results with other Recent Estimates, Technical Report: NREL/TP-5400-56412.
September 2013
Miller, J.M., Jones, P.T., Li, J.M., and Onar, O.C., ORNL Experience and Challenges Facing
Dynamic Wireless Power Charging of EV’s. IEEE circuits and systems magazine, 40-53, 21 May
2015

45
Miller, J.M., Onar, O.C., and Chinthavali, M., Primary-Side Power Flow Control of Wireless
Power Transfer for Electric Vehicle Charging, IEEE Journal of Emerging and Selected Topics in
Power Electronics, 3(1), 2015

Navidi, T., Analysis of Wireless and Catenary Power Transfer Systems for Electric Vehicle Range
Extension on Rural Highways, May 2016
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc., Seattle Route 48 Electrification Study Business Case,
August 2014

Ogden, Joan, 2018, Prospects for Hydrogen in the Future Energy System, ITS Research Report –
UCD-ITS-RR-18-07
Qiu, C. Chau, K.T., Liu, C., Chan, C.C., Overview of wireless power transfer for electric vehicle
charging, 2013 World Electric Vehicle Symposium and Exhibition (EVS27), 17-20 Nov. 2013

Ríos, M.A. and Ramos, G., Power System Modelling for Urban Massive Transportation Systems,
DOI: 10.5772/35191, 2012
Scania, www.scania.com
Shekhar, A.; Prasanth, V.; Bauer, P.; Bolech, M. Economic Viability Study of an On-Road Wireless
Charging System with a Generic Driving Range Estimation Method. Energies 2016, 9, 76.

Shin, J., Shin, S., Kim, Y., Ahn, S., Lee, S., Jung, G., Jeon, S.J. and Cho, D.H., Design and
Implementation of Shaped Magnetic-Resonance-Based Wireless Power Transfer System for
Roadway-Powered Moving Electric Vehicles, IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, 61(3),
March 2014

Song, K., Koh, K.E., Zhu, C., Jiang, J., Wang, C., and Huang, X. A Review of Dynamic Wireless
Power Transfer for In‐Motion Electric Vehicles, DOI: 10.5772/64331, 2016
Stetson, N.T. 2016 Annual Merit Review and Peer Evaluation Meeting, Hydrogen Storage
Program Area, Plenary Presentation, June 6-10, 2016
Swedish Viktoria ICT, Slide-in Electric Road System – Inductive Project Report, Phase 1, 2014-
05016
Systra COWI, Overhead Catenary Preliminary Description of the Overhead Catenary System for
LRT. Technical Note, May 2014

46