Executive Summary
Fuel cell electric trucks (FCEVs) are moving from prototypes to early commercial deployments, with Hyundai’s XCIENT Fuel Cell and Nikola’s Tre leading the charge in Europe and North America. They target duty cycles where battery-electric trucks struggle with range, payload, or charging downtime. At the same time, the sector faces high vehicle capex, hydrogen price uncertainty, and incomplete refuelling networks. At Energy Solutions, we compare Hyundai XCIENT and Nikola Tre on energy use, hydrogen demand, TCO, and infrastructure requirements, and map where FCEVs can realistically compete with diesel and battery-electric trucks by 2035.
- Current-generation heavy-duty FCEVs typically consume 7–10 kg H2/100 km, implying fuel costs strongly dependent on delivered hydrogen prices in the 4–8 USD/kg range.
- Tank-to-wheel efficiencies of 45–55% put fuel cells well ahead of diesel on energy conversion, but whole-chain efficiency is limited by electrolysis and compression losses.
- Capex for FCEVs is currently 2–2.5× diesel, but total cost of ownership can be competitive on routes with high utilisation, strong incentives, and access to cheap low-carbon hydrogen.
- Hyundai XCIENT deployments in Switzerland and other markets demonstrate real-world fleet operations with dedicated hydrogen stations, while Nikola Tre programmes in the US and Europe explore different business models including truck-as-a-service.
- FCEVs are unlikely to dominate heavy-duty sales before 2035, but can capture meaningful shares in long-haul corridors and high utilisation regional operations if hydrogen costs fall and policy support remains strong.
What You'll Learn
- FCEV Basics: Architecture, Storage, and Duty Cycles
- Benchmarks: Hyundai XCIENT vs Nikola Tre
- Economic Analysis: TCO vs Diesel and Battery-Electric Trucks
- Infrastructure: Hydrogen Refuelling Networks and Depot Models
- Devil's Advocate: Risks, Hype, and Competing Uses for Hydrogen
- Outlook to 2030/2035: Market Share Scenarios
- FAQ: Fuel Cell Trucks, Hydrogen Use, and Investment Decisions
FCEV Basics: Architecture, Storage, and Duty Cycles
Fuel cell trucks combine compressed hydrogen storage, polymer electrolyte membrane (PEM) fuel cells, battery buffers, and electric drivetrains. Hydrogen is stored in 350 or 700 bar tanks, passed through a fuel cell stack to generate electricity, and supplemented by a traction battery that handles transient loads and regenerative braking.
Target duty cycles for early FCEV deployments include:
- Regional distribution (200–400 km/day): Back-to-base routes with predictable patterns and depot refuelling.
- Long-haul corridor operations (500–800 km/day): Using hydrogen stations along major highways.
- Heavier loads or challenging terrain where battery-electric trucks would require large, heavy packs.
Methodology Note
Energy Solutions benchmarks are based on public specifications, demonstration data, and internal modelling. Hydrogen consumption and range figures are stylised and should be interpreted as typical ranges under mixed-duty conditions rather than precise guarantees for any specific vehicle.
Benchmarks: Hyundai XCIENT vs Nikola Tre
While exact specs evolve between generations, the table below summarises typical parameters for Hyundai XCIENT Fuel Cell and Nikola Tre fuel cell trucks as of mid-2020s deployments.
Stylised Technical Benchmarks: Hyundai XCIENT vs Nikola Tre (Representative Models)
| Parameter | Hyundai XCIENT Fuel Cell | Nikola Tre FCEV | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fuel cell power | ~180 kW (dual stacks) | ~200 kW (stack) | |
| Electric motor power | ~350 kW | ~480 kW | |
| Hydrogen storage | ~31–35 kg at 350 bar | ~60–70 kg at 700 bar | |
| Typical range (loaded) | ~300–400 km | ~450–800 km (depending on use case) | |
| Hydrogen consumption | 8–10 kg/100 km (duty-cycle dependent) | 7–9 kg/100 km (duty-cycle dependent) |
Comparative Hydrogen Consumption and Range
Source: Energy Solutions synthesis based on public OEM data and demonstration reports.
Economic Analysis: TCO vs Diesel and Battery-Electric Trucks
TCO for fuel cell trucks depends heavily on hydrogen price, utilisation, and incentives. Compared with diesel and battery trucks, FCEVs swap higher capex for potentially lower fuel costs and longer range flexibility.
Stylised TCO Comparison for Long-Haul Duty Cycle (7-Year Ownership)
| Vehicle Type | Vehicle Capex (Diesel = 1) | Fuel/Energy Cost (Diesel = 1) | Maintenance Cost (Diesel = 1) | Total TCO (Diesel = 1) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Diesel truck | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| Battery-electric truck | 2.0–2.3 | 0.6–0.8 | 0.8–0.9 | 1.1–1.4 |
| Fuel cell truck (FCEV) | 2.2–2.5 | 0.8–1.3 (H2 at 4–8 USD/kg) | 0.9–1.0 | 1.3–1.7 |
Relative TCO vs Diesel for Long-Haul Applications
Source: Energy Solutions TCO models; ranges reflect hydrogen and electricity price uncertainty.
Business Models and Hydrogen Price Sensitivity
Beyond drivetrain physics, FCEV adoption hinges on who owns the trucks, who owns the stations, and how hydrogen is priced over time. Early projects typically rely on a mix of OEM financing support, public grants, and long-term hydrogen offtake contracts indexed to power prices or wholesale gas benchmarks plus a premium.
Illustrative Business Models and Hydrogen Price Impact (Long-Haul Corridor, Europe)
| Model | Ownership Structure | Delivered H₂ Price (EUR/kg) | Indicative FCEV TCO vs Diesel |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fleet-owned trucks, third-party H₂ supply | Carrier owns trucks; utility or H₂ developer owns stations. | ~8 | 1.4–1.7× diesel; dependent on policy support. |
| Truck-as-a-service (TaaS) | OEM or financier owns trucks and sometimes stations; carrier pays per km. | ~6 | 1.2–1.5× diesel; easier capex management for fleets. |
| Integrated industrial hub | Hydrogen shared between industry and transport; multiple offtakers. | ~4–5 | 1.0–1.3× diesel; strongest case for early FCEV scaling. |
Sensitivity analysis shows that moving from 4 to 8 EUR/kg can shift FCEV TCO from roughly parity with diesel to a premium of several tens of percent, even under supportive tolls and CO₂ prices. Investors and fleet operators therefore focus on co-locating industrial and transport demand and signing long-dated offtake agreements to stabilise hydrogen price risk.
Infrastructure: Hydrogen Refuelling Networks and Depot Models
Successful FCEV deployments require coordinated investment in hydrogen production, compression, storage, and stations. Two main models are emerging:
- Back-to-base depots: Hydrogen supply and refuelling concentrated at fleet depots, simplifying logistics but limiting route flexibility.
- Highway corridor networks: Public or semi-public stations along key freight corridors, demanding higher capital but serving multiple fleets.
Indicative Hydrogen Infrastructure Requirements for a 100-Truck FCEV Fleet
| Parameter | Typical Value | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Daily hydrogen demand | 5–10 tonnes/day | Assumes 500–700 km/day per truck. |
| Peak hourly dispensing | 400–800 kg/h | Drives compressor and storage sizing. |
| Station capex (order-of-magnitude) | 10–20 million USD | Highly dependent on design, redundancy, and local costs. |
Stylised Hydrogen Demand Profile for a 100-Truck FCEV Fleet
Source: Energy Solutions fleet modelling for mixed long-haul and regional operations.
Devil's Advocate: Risks, Hype, and Competing Uses for Hydrogen
Fuel cell trucks capture the imagination, but there are strong arguments for caution. Hydrogen may deliver higher climate and economic value in other sectors—such as steelmaking, chemicals, or long-duration power storage—than in road transport. Building hydrogen trucking infrastructure prematurely could lock capital into suboptimal use cases if battery technology and grid upgrades progress faster than expected.
Moreover, the operational complexity of fuel cell trucks and stations should not be underestimated. Fleets already managing diesel, LNG, or battery operations may be reluctant to add yet another energy system. Policy-makers should therefore assess whether limited public funds are better directed to charging hubs and rail electrification first, treating FCEVs as a targeted tool for specific corridors rather than a panacea.
Outlook to 2030/2035: Market Share Scenarios
By 2030, fuel cell trucks are likely to remain a minority of heavy-duty sales but could form a noticeable share of new vehicles in hydrogen-forward regions. By 2035, under ambitious decarbonisation policies, FCEVs and battery trucks together could dominate new sales, with the exact split driven by hydrogen cost trajectories, charging network build-out, and OEM strategies.
Stylised New Heavy-Duty Truck Sales Mix (Global, 2035)
| Scenario | Diesel & Hybrid (%) | Battery-Electric (%) | Fuel Cell (%) | Other (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Conservative | 60–70 | 20–25 | 5–10 | 0–5 |
| Base case | 40–55 | 25–35 | 10–20 | 0–5 |
| Hydrogen-forward | 30–40 | 20–30 | 20–35 | 0–5 |
Indicative Fuel Cell Share in New Heavy-Duty Sales to 2035
Source: Energy Solutions heavy-duty hydrogen adoption scenarios.
FAQ: Fuel Cell Trucks, Hydrogen Use, and Investment Decisions
Where do fuel cell trucks make the most sense compared with battery trucks?
Fuel cell trucks are most compelling on longer-haul routes with high daily distances and limited charging opportunities, especially where hydrogen refuelling is available along corridors. For shorter regional routes with good grid access, battery-electric trucks often provide lower TCO and simpler infrastructure.
How critical is hydrogen price in FCEV economics?
Hydrogen price is a dominant factor in FCEV economics. At 4 USD/kg, fuel cell trucks can be competitive with diesel on a fuel-cost basis; at 8 USD/kg, they struggle to compete even with high carbon prices. Long-term offtake contracts and co-located industrial demand are key to securing attractive hydrogen pricing.
Will fuel cell trucks replace diesel entirely?
It is unlikely that FCEVs will replace diesel entirely by 2035. Instead, a mixed fleet of diesel, battery, and fuel cell trucks is probable, with diesel remaining in niches where infrastructure is lacking or capital constraints are tight. Over time, policy tightening and falling zero-emission vehicle costs could shrink the diesel share further.