The Future of Road Freight: Electric or Hydrogen Trucks?

Recently I was part of a group of friends discussing 'The Future of Road Freight - Electric or Hydrogen Trucks'. As the majority was bullish on Hydrogen, i have decided to state the claim in Hydrogen's favour while the counterargument for an Electric future. Here is an attempt to structure the claims and counterarguments of that discussion followed by my own, would be great to have your thoughts on the same. Following are some of the key pointers:

1. Hydrogen Light, Batteries Heavy, Therefore Hydrogen:

Claim: Trucks should use hydrogen for decarbonization due to its better energy density per unit mass compared to heavy batteries, considering load limitations.

Counterargument: While hydrogen does have a high energy density per unit mass (33.3 kWh/kg LHV), the efficiency and practicality of hydrogen storage present challenges. Hydrogen storage tanks, designed to withstand high pressures (typically 350 bar for trucks), add significant weight due to their robust construction. Furthermore, the energy density per unit volume of hydrogen (around 420 Wh/L at 350 bar) is comparable to modern battery packs. Therefore, the perceived advantage of hydrogen in terms of weight may not be as significant, especially considering that 75% of freight loads are limited by volume rather than weight.

2. Efficiency Doesn't Matter, Therefore Hydrogen:

Claim: The inefficiency of hydrogen fuel cells compared to batteries (approximately one-third as efficient) can be offset by the potential for faster refueling and longer range if hydrogen can be made cheaply enough.

Counterargument: While hydrogen fuel cell vehicles may offer faster refueling times, their energy inefficiency leads to higher operational costs. This is particularly relevant in the freight industry where fuel costs are a significant consideration. Additionally, the full lifecycle costs, including production, distribution, and dispensing of hydrogen, further amplify its inefficiency and overall expense compared to battery electric vehicles (BEVs).

3. Hydrogen Will Be Cheap:

Claim: Hydrogen will become an affordable fuel option as electricity prices decrease and production scales up, given its anticipated wide range of applications.

Counterargument: The production cost of hydrogen is heavily influenced by the cost of electricity and the efficiency of electrolyzers. While advancements in electrolyzer technology may reduce costs, hydrogen production remains energy-intensive. The distribution and storage of hydrogen, due to its low volumetric energy density, add further costs that may not decrease significantly with scale, particularly for distributed generation models.

4. Grid Limitations Favor Hydrogen:

Claim: The existing electrical grid may struggle to support widespread EV charging, while hydrogen could be distributed through existing gas pipelines, offering a practical solution for energy distribution and storage.

Counterargument: Modifying natural gas pipelines for hydrogen distribution presents significant technical challenges and safety concerns. Hydrogen's small molecule size and high flammability require substantial upgrades to existing infrastructure. Additionally, the concept of using hydrogen for grid-level energy storage loses appeal due to its lower round-trip efficiency compared to battery storage solutions. The challenges of hydrogen storage and distribution, alongside its inefficiency as an energy carrier, may outweigh the perceived benefits of utilizing existing gas infrastructure.

My take:

While hydrogen trucks present an attractive option due to their higher energy density and potential for rapid refueling, several practical challenges undermine their viability.

Firstly, the logistical hurdles of hydrogen transportation and storage cannot be overlooked. The reality of transporting hydrogen, whether through tube trailers or pipelines, presents significant technical and economic challenges. This is particularly evident in remote applications like resupplying northern/hilly communities via iced roads, where the logistics of hydrogen fuel simply don't align with practicality or safety.

Moreover, the exploration of hydrogen engines introduces further complications. While they might seem like a middle ground, the efficiency and emissions challenges they pose, including the production of NOx and particulates, make them a less desirable option compared to their fuel cell counterparts or electric vehicles.

The discourse then shifts to hydrogen-derived e-fuels like ammonia and methanol. While these might hold some promise for sectors like aviation and marine transportation, their application in land transport raises serious concerns, especially regarding safety, efficiency, and cost. The hazardous nature of ammonia, combined with the inefficiencies and high costs associated with e-fuels, suggest that they might not be the silver bullet for decarbonizing land transport.

In light of these considerations, the future of land freight transportation seems increasingly aligned with electrification. Battery electric vehicles (BEVs) offer a more direct, efficient, and increasingly feasible pathway to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and toxic pollutants. The rapid advancements in battery technology, charging infrastructure, and grid capacity are steadily overcoming the initial hurdles faced by electric trucks.

In conclusion, while hydrogen and e-fuels may have niche applications in certain sectors, the broad-scale decarbonization of freight transportation is likely to be dominated by electric vehicles. This transition not only aligns with environmental goals but also resonates with the practical and economic realities of the transportation industry. As we move forward, it is crucial to continue evaluating and adapting our strategies to ensure a sustainable and efficient transportation future.

Would be happy to have your thoughts!