Executive Summary
Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (FCEVs) and battery EVs (BEVs) are both marketed as "zero-emission" at the tailpipe. But from an energy-systems view in 2026, the differences are stark. BEVs convert grid electricity to motion with far higher efficiency, while FCEVs trade efficiency for fast refuelling and long range.
- Passenger BEVs typically use 3× less primary energy per km than FCEVs supplied with green hydrogen.
- Hydrogen refuelling infrastructure remains sparse and capital-intensive outside a few pilot regions.
- FCEVs may retain niche roles in certain heavy-duty or fleet corridors, but momentum for light-duty is firmly with BEVs.
At Energy Solutions, we frame hydrogen vs batteries using well-to-wheel efficiency, infrastructure cost and policy direction—not slogans.
What You'll Learn
Technology basics: FCEV vs BEV
BEV: stores electricity in a battery and uses an inverter + motor to drive the wheels. Charging can occur at home, work or public points.
FCEV: stores compressed hydrogen, converts it to electricity in a fuel cell stack, and often includes a small battery for buffering.
Both architectures are quiet and responsive at the wheels, but the upstream chains differ sharply. BEVs rely mainly on the power grid and charging hardware, while FCEVs require hydrogen production, compression, storage, transport and dispensing infrastructure. These upstream choices dominate both energy use and cost.
Efficiency & climate impact
The table below uses stylised well-to-wheel numbers for a compact car in 2026, assuming low-carbon electricity and green hydrogen from electrolysis.
| Powertrain (illustrative) | Energy carrier use | Approx. primary energy input | Relative CO₂ (low-carbon supply) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Battery EV | 16 kWh/100km electricity at charger | ~23 kWh/100km | Lowest |
| Hydrogen FCEV | 1.1 kg H₂/100km | ~55-60 kWh/100km electricity to make H₂ | Higher, depends on H₂ source |
| Efficient petrol car | 5.5 L/100km petrol | ~60+ kWh/100km (fuel energy) | Highest tailpipe & upstream |
Even with optimistic assumptions for electrolyser and fuel-cell efficiency, BEVs make more km per kWh of renewable electricity—critical where clean power is scarce or expensive. In systems planning, this difference directly affects how many wind turbines or solar farms are needed to decarbonise a fleet.
Stylised primary energy per 100 km (lower is better)
Indicative well-to-wheel CO₂ per 100 km (illustrative)
Use-cases & vehicle segments
In light-duty passenger markets, BEVs now dominate announced investment and model pipelines. FCEVs are largely limited to pilot fleets or niches where long range and very fast refuelling are prioritised over energy efficiency.
- Passenger cars & city buses: trends strongly favour BEVs, supported by urban air-quality rules and dense charging networks.
- Regional trucks & depots: both BEVs and hydrogen trucks are being trialled; economics often favour BEVs where depot charging is feasible.
- Specialised heavy-duty corridors: hydrogen can play a role where fuelling can be concentrated at a few high-throughput hubs.
Infrastructure, cost and niches
Battery charging can often reuse existing distribution grids and siting (garages, depots, car parks). Hydrogen stations, by contrast, require expensive compression, storage and safety systems, which are hard to justify without very high throughput.
For light-duty cars, this tilts economics towards BEVs almost everywhere. Hydrogen may be more compelling for specific heavy-duty freight corridors, port equipment or regions with abundant stranded renewable power and strong policy support.
Policy & investment signals
Policy makers increasingly differentiate between where hydrogen adds value and where direct electrification is more efficient. Many national roadmaps now prioritise hydrogen for industry, shipping and possibly aviation, while steering passenger vehicles toward BEVs.
For investors, this translates into higher confidence around BEV charging networks and more selective support for road-transport hydrogen projects, often tied to very specific corridors or anchor customers.
Case studies: real-world deployments
Case Study A: Hydrogen bus fleet – Cologne, Germany
- Fleet size: 35 fuel-cell buses deployed 2022-24.
- Results: Reliable service, but H₂ cost ~3× higher per km than battery-electric buses on same routes.
- Lesson: Hydrogen buses work technically but struggle economically without heavy subsidy; operator now shifting new orders to BEV.
Case Study B: Heavy-duty hydrogen trucks – California, USA
- Corridor: Port of Los Angeles to inland distribution centres (~150 km).
- Fleet: 30 Class-8 FCEV trucks in pilot since 2023.
- Results: Fast refuelling enables 2+ trips/day; but H₂ price volatility and limited stations remain barriers to scale.
- Lesson: Hydrogen trucks can work in high-utilisation corridors with anchor fuelling, but BEV megawatt-charging is catching up.
Case Study C: Passenger FCEV sales – South Korea
- Model: Hyundai Nexo, one of few mass-market FCEVs.
- Sales: ~10,000 units/year domestically, supported by government subsidies and station rollout.
- Lesson: Even with strong policy support, FCEV passenger sales remain a fraction of BEV volumes; infrastructure density is the bottleneck.
Devil's advocate: hydrogen's challenges
Efficiency gap: Making hydrogen from electricity, compressing it, transporting it and converting it back to electricity in a fuel cell loses 60-70% of the original energy. BEVs lose only 10-20%.
Infrastructure cost: A single hydrogen station can cost US$ 2 million; a DC fast charger costs US$ 50,000. Scaling hydrogen for mass-market cars is economically challenging.
Green hydrogen scarcity: Most hydrogen today is "grey" (from natural gas). Truly green hydrogen remains expensive and supply-constrained.
Vehicle cost: FCEVs remain more expensive than comparable BEVs, with limited model choice and lower resale confidence.
Bottom line: Hydrogen has a role in hard-to-electrify sectors, but for passenger cars and most trucks, BEVs are the more practical path in 2026.
Outlook to 2030
2026-2027: BEV dominance in light-duty continues; hydrogen focus shifts to heavy-duty pilots and industrial clusters. Green hydrogen costs remain high (~US$ 6/kg).
2028-2030: If electrolyser costs fall and renewable power expands, green hydrogen may reach US$ 4/kg in favourable regions, improving FCEV economics for specific corridors. BEV megawatt-charging for trucks matures, further narrowing hydrogen's window.
Wildcards: Breakthrough in solid-state batteries could extend BEV range to 800+ km, reducing hydrogen's range advantage. Conversely, major policy mandates for hydrogen trucks (e.g., EU) could sustain niche demand.
Projected green hydrogen cost trajectory (illustrative)
Frequently Asked Questions
Is hydrogen "better" than batteries for all vehicles?
No. For most passenger cars and light vans, BEVs are more energy-efficient and cheaper to run. Hydrogen may fit some heavy-duty or long-haul niches where fast refuelling and range are critical.
What if my grid is still carbon-intensive?
Decarbonising the grid improves all electrified options. Using that same grid power to make hydrogen and then run FCEVs adds extra conversion losses, so BEVs still come out ahead.
Should policymakers still fund hydrogen for road transport?
Evidence increasingly supports prioritising BEVs for light-duty and focusing hydrogen support on sectors where direct electrification is harder (shipping, aviation, steel).
How much does green hydrogen cost in 2026?
Delivered green hydrogen typically costs US$ 6-9/kg depending on region and scale. At US$ 7/kg, FCEV fuel cost per km is roughly 2-3× higher than BEV electricity cost.
Will hydrogen stations become as common as EV chargers?
Unlikely for passenger cars. Hydrogen stations are 10-20× more expensive to build and require specialised supply chains. Most investment is now flowing to EV charging.