Electric or fuel cell trucks are more likely to fail because of the infrastructure than the drive

Electric or fuel cell trucks are more likely to fail because of the infrastructure than the drive-fuel

Green parliamentary group leader Anton Hofreiter is of the opinion that the federal government is still on the brakes on e-mobility: “The expansion of the charging infrastructure must be significantly accelerated if the federal government is serious about the goal it has set itself of one million charging points in 2030”. His statement was based on the charging infrastructure in the field of e-cars. But there is also a need for action with electric or fuel cell trucks, as a study is able to show.

According to an analysis, the construction of a Europe-wide network of charging points for electric trucks or hydrogen filling stations for heavy goods vehicles would cost billions. However, if you compare these costs to a possible climate effect, they are “manageable”. This is the result of a recent study by the consulting firm PwC Strategy&. The study assumes that around 120 fast-charging parks on important long-distance routes with an estimated cost of 2.5 billion euros would be necessary to get long-distance transport with alternative drives up and running.

If trucks powered by fuel cells become established, from the current perspective one would have to calculate around 2.2 billion euros to set up the necessary infrastructure – including 70 separate hydrogen filling stations. One such example could be the Mercedes-Benz GenH2 truck. Presented as a concept vehicle from 2023, the GenH2 truck will demonstrate in customer trials that the fuel cell is ideal for long-distance haulage and commercial vehicle traffic. up to 1.000 km range should be possible with one tank filling. After successfully completing customer trials, the GenH2 truck is scheduled to go into series production in the second half of the decade. But Hyundai, HYZON Motors and even Freudenberg Sealing Technologies also rely on the fuel cell for the “titans of the highway”.

Currently, the discussion comes up again and again, whether electric trucks or fuel cell trucks. The fuel cell in particular is given opportunities here, as it has a greater range. However, these drives are comparatively expensive – and first of all, elementary hydrogen must be produced in large quantities and, if possible, with renewable electricity. Trucks that rely on synthetically produced fuels as energy carriers were also considered as part of the study. But draw the short straw in terms of costs. Because in ten years these would be around 95 cents per kilometer. In contrast, 68 cents are accepted for electric trucks and 65 cents for hydrogen trucks. The normal diesel combustion engine would be significantly cheaper at 57 cents.

Related articles

Please follow and like us:

4 thoughts on “Electric or fuel cell trucks are more likely to fail because of the infrastructure than the drive”

  1. What kind of nonsense is being spread again..
    There is currently no hydrogen truck that can cover more than 500 km ..
    In addition, the cost calculation makes no sense, electric vehicles are already more efficient than diesel, so why should a truck be higher in terms of costs… Yes, vehicles can be more expensive to buy, but due to the high mileage and the hopefully low repair costs, an electric truck is now already cheaper..
    With the kilometer costs of the hydrogen truck, I can’t say what was calculated here, the hydrogen is relatively more expensive than the KW for the electric truck, the double costs come with the truck..
    Here it seems almost only like Nikola when it comes to hydrogen..

  2. It’s nice that you link to the Mercedes BZ truck. But the truck is an example of how it is not that easy with the H2 filling stations: should there be 70 H2 filling stations with high-pressure hydrogen at 700 bar? Or (as the Mercedes needs it) liquid hydrogen at -253°C? You can quickly sink a few billion if another technology prevails. The same applies to a limited extent to e-trucks, according to the current CCS standard with up to 350 kW it won’t do anything to sufficiently charge an e-truck with a large battery in 45 minutes (legal driving break) (if you take realistic charging capacities as a basis). Do you need pantograph fast chargers like with e-buses?? Or a new wired standard? That should be clear before billions are pumped into infrastructure..

  3. As long as there are not really real hydrogen trucks that can actually travel long distances, it is total nonsense to set up hydrogen filling stations and then at some point to realize that there are no functional and economically functioning hydrogen trucks.
    And in addition, according to occupational safety and health, truck drivers are only allowed to drive 4.5 hours at a time and then have to drive 45 minutes. Taking a break that would be max. 80km/h on the Autobahn. 360km in a row, so a battery-electric truck would have to cover these kilometers in 45 minutes. can recharge so why then hydrogen trucks with a range of 1000km?

  4. Hopefully Tesla will end the moronic discussions at 10:30 p.m. today. For delivery traffic with a central depot, Tesla will probably only order semis with MW chargers and soon autobidder-controlled power supply in the next few years. I wish our politicians continued stimulating dreams.


Leave a Comment