Fueling the Future of Mobility: Fuel Cell Buses

April 2021

Fueling the future of mobility: Fuel cell buses Hydrogen Articles Collection • “Where do we stand so far?”: Key learnings from fuel cell buses testing programs in the EU and US • “The mid-term prospects”: Mid-term (2030) competitiveness prospects of FCEBs and infrastructure against conventional technologies (ICE) • “The way ahead”: Preferred business-models to deploy FCEBs at scale Fueling the future of mobility: Fuel cell buses

Introduction

The EU has set ambitious Greenhouse enabling non-motorized individuals to FCEBs offer Gas (GHG) emission reduction targets, gain affordable access to medium and aiming at carbon neutrality by 2050, with long-distance mobility while emitting ~40% compelling an ambitious milestone of -55% by 2030 less GHG than if using a personal vehicle4. compared to 1990 levels1. However, with 100-130 gCO2/(pax.km)4, the advantages With the road transportation sector traditional diesel-powered bus solution responsible for 21.8% of EU CO2eq that proved effective thus far is showing over alternative emissions2, part of the European Union’s limitations in a low-emissions world. While answer to the emission reduction challenge there is no well-to-wheels zero emission technologies: is an irreversible shift to decarbonated solution, public transportation players are mobility, with the clear objective to stay testing alternative powertrain technologies service levels competitive while responding to the through specific pilot projects, in order increasing mobility needs3. to understand their techno-economic comparable to ICE implications and devise the optimal way Buses are the cornerstone of every forward. country public transportation system, buses, fast refueling times, good driving comfort and low Figure 1. EU Emissions reduction ambition by 2020 emissions.

The EU set the first CO2 reduction targets for heavy-duty vehicles by 2030, to curb road transport emissions

Heavy-duty vehicles are key contributors to CO2 emissions, for which the EU targets a ~54 million tons

CO2 reduction by 2030

(CO2 emissions - million tons CO2)

EU C2 reduction target for heavy-duty vehicles

(million tons CO2) Total transports • Heavy-duty ~3 00 00 0 -54 vehicles ~0 5% (Trucks, lorries, buses) • ther transports ~20 20% (Cars, rail, maritime, air)

0 2025 targets: 2030 targets: thers Only for large trucks For all heavy-duty Fuel combustion (>16t; i.e., 65%-70% of total vehicles (excl. transport) heavy-duty vehicles 2 ~2 340 75% CO2 emissions -30 Industrial processes emissions) 2 of ero or low Agriculture 2 CO2 emissions -5 emission new Waste management trucks

2020 2020 2025 2030

Notes: 1. CO2: 80% of GHG; Heavy-duty vehicles: 5% of total EU emissions; 2. Vs. EU average in the reference period (1 July 2019–30 June 2020). Sources: European Environment Agency; Monitor Deloitte Analysis

2 Fueling the future of mobility: Fuel cell buses

Hydrogen is a major pillar of this strategy For example, through its Bus2025 Hydrogen buses have not been accounted as an energy vector linking low or zero- strategic program, the Paris region’s main for in this strategy, as the technology emissions electricity generation to vehicles. transportation operator RATP (~350 bus was not mature enough at the time the In the case of heavy-duty vehicles, the EU routes) set a goal of reducing its carbon roadmap was being established. However, has laid out a Hydrogen Roadmap plan that footprint by 20256 with the gradual RATP recently started FCEB pilot tests, as includes the deployment of 45,000 fuel replacement of its diesel-fueled buses, as FCEBs offer compelling advantages over cell trucks and buses (FCEB) on European evidenced from the following measures/ alternative technologies such as: 5 roads by 2030 , positioning hydrogen initiatives: • An availability/level of service equivalent as a linchpin in the decarbonization of • Electric buses are being deployed to diesel-fueled buses with a fast- public transportation, a segment in which at scale with many bus routes being refueling time. batteries alone are suboptimal because of progressively converted to electric. • Good level of performance in terms their low energy density and slow charging RATP has committed to reach an 80% of acceleration and speed, FCEBs performance. Scrutiny of the associated 6 electric bus fleet by 2025 . The French performing similarly to diesel buses, while refueling infrastructure should also be power generation mix (93% of the also offering a smooth driving experience made, as it is an equally critical component electricity generated in 2020 was from and high degree of comfort, thanks to low of the equation, directly impacting both 7 a decarbonized source ) makes this noise and vibration levels. operations (fuel availability, refueling time, solution suitable for the RATP carbon • Low level of emissions (CO , but also NOx, distribution network footprint, etc.) and reduction goal. 2 economic performance of the solution SOx and fine particulates, which is critical • Biogas buses have a longer range than (delivered cost of fuel). in an urban environment), if hydrogen is electric buses, making them more Even though it offers many advantages, being produced by electrolysers powered suitable for long routes (>200 km6). RATP hydrogen as an energy vector for buses either with renewable or with nuclear has committed to reach a 20% biogas bus is still at its early stage compared to other power. fleet by 2025. technologies. FCEBs are now starting to FCEBs therefore offer the operational make their way into the roadmap of public • Hybrid buses, with GHG emissions advantages of both electric and transportation companies across the that are 15% lower than those of diesel conventional diesel buses. Further 8 globe, as they started assessing technical buses , are positioned as a transitory technological advances and on-the- performance as well as operating models technology that precedes the switch to ground testing of business and operating for bus fleets and the associated refueling electric and biogas and are therefore not models will likely cement its position as a infrastructure. considered part of the “end game”. technology of choice for buses.

3 Fueling the future of mobility: Fuel cell buses

Figure 2. RATP bus fleet by fuel technology Includes standard bus, articulated bus, midibus and minibus

43 - High reliability and ﬂexibility Fossil fuel resource with GHG & particle emissions Lower cost of acquisition (~250k€) Mature infrastructure for maintenance and refueling Major particle emissions reduction vs traditional Fossil fuel resource with GHG emissions diesel (50-74% reduction) On-board storage safety concerns Modest acquisition cost (+15% vs diesel bus) • Mature market, numerous experiences identiﬁed Diesel 33 15% emission savings vs diesel Emissions depend on electric motor usage (route, Reasonably mature technology, considered as congestion, etc.) reliable as diesel engine Still using fossil fuel resource Up to +50% acquisition cost vs traditional buses

ero tailpipe and noise emission Emissions dependent on the origin of electricity High potential for zero emission (if electricity is used green) Relatively immature technology therefore high acquisition costs (x2 vs diesel bus) CNG 24 • Limited ﬂexibility due to recharging time

ero tailpipe emission Emissions dependent on the hydrogen production Hybrid 04 • High ﬂexibility (range similar to diesel buses and method quick recharging) • High purchasing cost (x3-5 vs diesel bus) Immature infrastructure (lack of hydrogen refueling Electric stations) Fuel Cell 2 202 ehicles in operation

Source: RATP, Clean fleets

To better understand the conditions programs from both a technical and an Total Cost of Ownership (TCO)? leading to the widespread use of FCEBs in economic perspective? What are the key • The way ahead: Considering where we public transportation strategies, three main certainties and unknowns so far? stand so far and the mid-term prospects challenges need to be addressed: • The mid-term prospects: According to for FCEB competitiveness, what are the • Where do we stand so far: How mature current technical improvement trends key challenges and considerations for and competitive are current hydrogen- for fuel cell and hydrogen production developing a hydrogen-based business powered bus fleets and their associated technologies, can we expect FCEBs to model for bus operators? charging infrastructure? What learnings become a competitive alternative to other can be gathered from the various test types of bus technologies - in terms of

4 Fueling the future of mobility: Fuel cell buses

Where do we stand so far?

The development of Fuel cell buses real operating conditions is a must-have for Recent testing programs is crucial for countries to support all stakeholders in the hydrogen ecosystem their objectives of lower-emission public (e.g., local governments, bus operators, programs have transportation. To ramp up deployment bus manufacturers, technology providers, at scale of fuel cell buses and their hydrogen infrastructure providers). The confirmed FCEB associated charging infrastructure, a clear last decade has seen multiple projects understanding of the technology under undertaken in Europe and in the US. fleets technical attractiveness. Nonetheless technical improvements and cost reduction efforts are still required to make FCEBs competitive.

5 Fueling the future of mobility: Fuel cell buses

Figure 3. US & EU Fuel Cell bus projects Europe has already funded and launched several FC buses projects across various EU countries

Fuel cell buses programs in Europe Project Cities # buses Timeline

Bolzano, London, Milan, Oslo, CHIC ~29 2010-2016 Cologne, Hamburg

High Antwerp, Aberdeen, Groningen, ~14 2012-2019 VLOCITY San Remo,

HyFLEET: 10 cities (e.g., London, Madrid, 2006- ~47 CUTE Barcelona, Reykjavik, Berlin) 2009

Aalborg, London, Pau, Rome, 3Emotion South Rotterdam, South Holland, ~26 2015-2022 Versailles

Other Karlsruhe, Stuttgart, Frankfurt, ~13 2013-2017 projects Arnhem, North Brabant

Aberdeen, Birmingham, Bozen, JIVE 1 Cologne, London, Rhein, Riga, 2017-2022 Sagelse, Wuppertal ~300 Auxerre, Brighton, Dundee, Jive 2 2018-2023 Emmen, Pau, Toulouse, Velenj

CHIC1 High VLOCITY HYFLEET 3Emotion JIVE2 1 JIVE 2 Other projects Countries with FCB in operation Programs already done Programs still in progress

1. Clean Hydrogen In European Cities; 2. Joint Initiative for hydrogen Vehicles across Europe Source: FCH (last update 09/2017)

Fuel cell buses projects US launched fuel cell buses programs mainly concentrated in few states (CA, OH, MI and IL) Fuel cell buses programs in the US

Project Cities # buses Timeline

AC Transit SF, Oakland ~34 2010-2017

SunLine Thousand Palms ~15 2011-2018

UCI Irvine ~1 2015

Orange Country Santa ana ~1 2017-2018

SARTA Canton ~12 2017-2018

Flint Mass Flint ~1 2016 Transportation

Champaign-Urbana Champaign- ~2 2020 Mass Transit Urbana

AC Transit SunLine UCI Orange County SARTA Flint Mass Transportation Champaign-Urbana Mass Transit

Countries with FCB in operation Programs already done Programs still in progress

Source: National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) last update in 2018

These recent and ongoing medium- to validate their technical consistency. make FCEB competitive. Updates to the scale test programs have confirmed Nonetheless operational and technological regulatory framework are also needed to FCEB fleets as a promising alternative to improvements combined with cost ensure an unhindered deployment at scale. other powertrain options and allowed reduction efforts are still required to

6 Fueling the future of mobility: Fuel cell buses

FCEB – Technological Status

Fuel Cell Electric Buses offer a very zero-emissions mode of transportation cells alone, as the batteries can provide promising option for low-emission public than Battery Electric Buses, which suffer the peak power required for acceleration transportation. FCEBs have a level of from long charging times and the additional and store brake energy from deceleration, service equivalent to that of diesel-fueled weight of batteries. thereby extending vehicle range10. Waste buses, with similar operating range (up Even though FCEB design and technology heat generated by the fuel stack can also to 400 kms), service duration (up to 22 are still evolving, its structural components be used to heat up the cabin and/or the hours a day), and fast refueling time (~10 are well defined. Hybridized powertrains, batteries for increased energy efficiency minutes), while boasting zero tailpipe in which fuel cells continuously charge (especially in colder environments). emissions and reduced noise9. If fueled electric batteries, have demonstrated with green hydrogen, FCEBs offer a better superior performance compared to fuel

Figure 4. Typical FCEB hybrid powertrain elements

High pressure hydrogen Fuel cell stack Electric motor storage tank

Balance-of- Batteries Plant

Hydrogen is stored at high pressure (350 operations and maintenance requirements the surface of porous solids such as metal bar) in gaseous form in cylindrical tanks, are subject to standards specific to on-road alloys or complex hydrides13. usually located on the roof of the FCEB11. vehicles as laid out in SAE J2579. FCEB power is generated from hydrogen Typical storage capacity range for an Future technological developments focus using heavy-duty PEM fuel cells supported individual bus is 35-50 kg12. Buses have on increasing energy density for the same by all the auxiliary equipment, such as lower storage pressure than in Passenger storage footprint, either by lowering the coolant and air sub-systems or data Cars (700 bars) as they have enough space temperature (and therefore requiring acquisition systems for performance to accommodate large storage equipment. advanced insulating material), or through monitoring and diagnostics. Hydrogen tanks’ design, construction, the reversible adsorption of hydrogen onto

7 Fueling the future of mobility: Fuel cell buses

FCEB – Key learnings from test programs The extended use of FCEB fleets (more than expectations. In addition to improved Significant 10 million km traveled for more than 80 technological design to reduce failure buses14) and their charging infrastructure rates, an adequate after-sales service improvements in FCEBs has provided extremely useful insights and spare parts strategy is critical to from a technical and economic point of ensure efficient and timely maintenance. acquisition costs will be view. FCEB vehicles deployed in the test Availability targets for ongoing programs programs have generally been able to are >90%. driven by economies of 12, meet the demand of bus operators Although fuel cells, on average, meet scale and technology validating their utility in real operating pre-defined objectives,the observed conditions. lifetime showed significant improvements, thanks • Best-achieved CAPEX for FCEBs variability12 (from less than 3,000 hours amounted to 650 k€ to more than 23,000, with an average to the development Even though this is a significant of 6,820 hours across all buses of the reduction since the beginning of the CHIC test program). The wide range of pan-European last decade (>1.5M€/bus), CAPEX spend is the consequence of inconsistent for FCEB remains understandably approaches to performance monitoring standards and joint high compared to a diesel bus15 due and operational practices across procurement initiatives. to the small scale of operations and test programs, thereby increasing the currently insufficient technological maintenance costs as the lack of maturity. Significant improvements in predictability does not allow for effective acquisition costs are necessary for FCEBs preventive measures. Additional efforts to become competitive, which will be with strict monitoring and control of driven by economies of scale and design/ parameters to understand the true technology improvements, most likely operating fuel cell lifetime is key for future fostered by the development of Pan- programs. European standards or regulations, and • Fuel consumption reached 8-9 kg/ joint procurement of FCEBs at national or 100 km European levels. Fuel consumption decreased from 15 • Best FCEB availability rate across test kg/100km to 8 kg/100 km12, although programs is ~90%, with maintenance room for improvement still exists. The costs likely to be in the 0.3-0.4€/km improved design of fuel cell systems, range electricity storage and hydrogen storage Recorded maintenance costs for FCEBs as core components of fully hybridized in test programs are significantly higher powertrain can not only lead to >50% than for diesel buses (0.1-0.15 €/km15) improvement in fuel efficiency compared but it can be expected to reduce with to previous-generation models used technology improvements and reduction before 2010, but also greatly increase the in cost of spare parts. fuel cell stack lifetime and overall vehicle duty cycle. Improvements include smaller Observed bus failures and associated and more optimized fuel cell systems downtime still primarily originate from with higher density, higher performance conventional vehicle components issues. optimization through the operating FCEB-specificdowntime events across software, energy storage system acting test programs were related to fuel as a buffer for peak loads and capturing 12 cell systems and hybrid propulsion . energy from braking, and a reduction in While FC stacks do generally perform H2 tanks capacity requirements for the to expectations, FC systems could same range capability. Earlier programs malfunction due to auxiliary components show a high hydrogen consumption (~13- failure (e.g. converters, cooling pumps, 15 kg/100km) while newer vehicles have etc.), which, in combination with long reached ~10 kg/100km. Other ongoing maintenance times caused by long spare programs aim at reaching targets of 8-9 parts replenishment times, reduces kg/100km. overall fleet availability to levels below

8 Fueling the future of mobility: Fuel cell buses

Figure 5. Summary of major KPIs across major FCEB pilot programs

Stark Area Orange HyFLEET: Sunline CHIC V.LO-City Regional County 3Emotion JIVE 1 JIVE 2 CUTE Transit Transit (Ohio) (California)

Region

Duration of the 2017- 2018- 2006-2009 2010-2016 2012-2019 2014-2019 2018-2019 2017-2018 2015-2022 project 2022 2023

Bus average >92% 69% 85% 73% 68% 70% <80% >90% >90% availability

Not 2012: 1.3 m€ FC Bus Cost 1.3 m€ 1.8 m€ 1.7 m€ 1.1 m€ 850k€ 650k€ 625k€ communicated 2015: 650k€

Maintenance Not Between 0.40 Not 0.29 €/km 0.17 €/km 0.24 €/km N/A N/A N/A Cost communicated & 1.73 €/km communicated

Between 7.9 FC consumption Not 21.9 & 16 11.3 12.5 9.7 <9 N/A N/A (kg/100km) communicated Average 12.1

Source: National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), FCH Targets figures

9 Fueling the future of mobility: Fuel cell buses

Hydrogen Refueling Stations (HRS) – Technological Status

• Hydrogen Refueling Stations (HRS) necessary infrastructure is available. are the backbone of FCEB fleets as the Low pressure delivery and/or storage of Hydrogen Refueling competitiveness of the solution relies hydrogen is possible though it requires greatly on their ability to service all fuel using compressors to reach the required Stations (HRS) are requirements quickly and cost-effectively. delivery pressure of 350 bars. If the HRS the backbone of All HRS include storage capacity and is also designed to service passenger dispensing facilities able to deliver at cars, delivery pressure increases to 700 FCEB fleets as the the FCEB standard storage pressure of bars, and pre-cooling of hydrogen is 350 bars12. Several technical aspects required (SAE J2601). competitiveness of must be contemplated when deploying Hydrogen Storage refueling infrastructure, at hydrogen • Pressure: Hydrogen is stored as the solution relies production (on-site or remote), storage compressed gas in pressurized vessels, (pressure, flammability, hydrogen purity) whose design and dimensioning depends greatly on their or dispensing stages. on the storage pressure. Higher pressure Hydrogen Supply options translates to a lower footprint of the ability to service all • On-site option: HRS can be supplied equipment needed as the gas volumes locally with on-site hydrogen production reduces accordingly, but at the expense fuel requirements capacity. Keeping the project green of more onerous material to be selected requires hydrogen to be produced and stricter safety precautions to be quickly and cost- through electrolysis using low emission taken (see Standards developed by ANSI/ power either through a decarbonized AGA, NGV2-1998 and NGV2-2000, used effectively. grid or on-site renewable energy sources for CNG storage). Current practices for such as solar panels. Producing hydrogen HRS dedicated to FCEB fleets include locally requires compression facilities for the use of cascade storage systems, in storage and dispensing. which most hydrogen is stored at lower pressure (e.g., 200 bars) with a small • Remote option: HRS can also be amount of hydrogen stored at a pressure supplied from external sources, with hydrogen transported to the HRS under higher than the delivery pressure (350 liquid or gaseous compressed form bars for FCEB). moved by trucks, or via a pipeline if the

Figure 6. Typical Hydrogen Refueling Stations operating models

Supply Storage Dispensing

On-site H2 Production Gaseous supply

Electricity Electrolyzer Compressors Pre-cooler (if high pressure) Natural Gas Steam Methane Gas Storage tanks Biogas Reforming Unit (low or high pressure)

External H2 sourcing Liquid supply Region

Dispenser Gaseous H2 Pipeline Liquid Storage tanks

Gaseous H2 Tube-trailer Evaporator/Heat Truck exchanger

Liquid H2 Insulated tank Cryogenic Hydrogen Gaseous H2 path trailer Truck Compressors Liquid H2 path

10 Fueling the future of mobility: Fuel cell buses

Table 1: Hydrogen storage standards by pressure

Category Features Max pressure

Type I All-metal cylinders (steel or aluminum), low-cost and commonly used in CNG vehicles 200 bars

Type II Load-bearing steel or aluminum liner hoop wrapped with continuous glass-fiber composite filament 300 bars

Type III Non-load-bearing metal liner axial and hoop wrapped with continuous full composite filament 300-700 bars

Non-load-bearing non-metal liner wrapped with continuous filament (all composite with carbon or carbon/ Type IV 700 bars glass fiber)

• Flammability: High pressure storage Contamination by even small quantities Hydrogen Dispensing and flammability of hydrogen require of impurities like water, oil, nitrogen or • Hydrogen is dispensed through a nozzle specific HSSE considerations when sulfur can cause significant degradation connecting the HRS delivery system designing the site layout to account for of the fuel cell, leading to operational to the vehicle. Standardization efforts, potential ATEX zones. Minimum standards issues and the need for component as laid out by international standard for such storage in urban environments replacement. Therefore, quality control ISO 17268:2012 and SAE J2600, ensure are described in ISO/WDTR 19880-1, planning with contaminants detection compatibility with vehicles from different which includes constraints for minimum and prevention are crucial to minimize manufacturers, which is crucial for the distance to other units in the facility, occurrences. Regular sampling is the future deployment at scale of public to industrial facilities and to public most appropriate method, as in-line refueling stations. The dispensing process buildings and areas (schools, hospitals, detection technology is not yet cost- for heavy-duty vehicles is also subject to etc.). Additional legislation is relevant to effective enough to be deployed at the standardization (SAE J2601-2), providing hydrogen storage: the SEVESO directive nozzle12. A major challenge remains as guidance on the safe conditions under and the ATEX directive 2014/34/EU. With only a few laboratories are equipped to which FCEBs can achieve high SOC in standards evolving based on learnings perform the testing required by the ISO terms of rate, pressure and temperature, from experience and safety events, 14687 standard. Other FCEV projects in enabling fast-refueling rates of up to 7.2 regulation and permits for HRS locations Europe (HyCoRa, H2moveScandinavia) kg/min will likely be important criteria to be have had to rely on a US based laboratory • Additionally, accurate flow metering for accounted for when deploying refueling to perform hydrogen fuel quality proper accounting of volumes dispensed infrastructure. measurement due to the capability not is currently lacking, due to the absence of being available commercially in Europe. • Hydrogen Purity: Regardless of its methodologies for calibrating hydrogen As a result, capable laboratories are source, hydrogen needs to maintain flow meters at the operating pressures currently being implemented (HYDRAITE a 99.97% purity to be effectively and temperatures12. This issue can be project), but this demonstrates a major useable by current fuel cells, as laid addressed by measuring the FCEB bus gap in the value chain that needs to be out by the hydrogen fuel quality and weight. standard specifications ISO 14687:2019. filled.

Table 2: Maximum allowable hydrogen contaminants for fuel cells

Allowable limit Contaminant (ppm)

Helium 300

Nitrogen 300

Methane 100

Water 5

Oxygen 5

Total Hydrocarbons (excl. CH4) 2

Carbon Dioxide 2

Carbon Monoxide 0.2

Total Sulfur (incl. H2S) 0.004

11 Fueling the future of mobility: Fuel cell buses

Hydrogen Refueling Stations (HRS) – Key learnings from test programs

Insights on HRS optimum design and use in the short term to be economically can be drawn from their extended usage viable. While HRS in the considered test programs, as they • HRS facilities, either supplied on- include all supply types: on-site electrolysis, availability has been site or remotely, are currently very external sourcing, or a combination of both. expensive due to low utilization and fully validated (i.e. • HRS availability is assumed to be the small scale of deployment. close to 100%12 OPEX figures of 12-28€/kg as reported in close to 100%), Even though it requires additional spend, the CHIC project12 did not meet targets hydrogen compressor redundancy is of 5-10€/kg due to the low utilization of these facilities are key to achieving high levels of availability, the units for on-site generation. Higher as compressor issues can cause up to FCEB availability, lower power prices and still expensive to 50% of the HRS downtime. However, maintenance optimization will likely drive redundancy can only be achieved with OPEX lower. operate because of additional capital spend, and hence Remotely-supplied HRS construction cost the right balance between CAPEX and is currently in the 5,300-7,100€/(kg.day) low utilization rates utilization rate needs to be found. range. CAPEX for HRS with small-scale Infrastructure utilization rates can on-site electrolysis goes up to 13,000- and the small scale be increased through the delivery of 19,000€/(kg/day capacity)12 hydrogen to fuel cell passenger cars. But Instances of hydrogen contamination of deployment. it requires some upgrade in facilities to occurred with water (high humidity), include a 700-bar refueling capacity as nitrogen and oil. All instances impacted Hydrogen opposed to the 350 bars required for operations significantly, causing major buses. At these higher delivery pressures, downtime for the FCEBs, in addition to contamination is pre-cooling is necessary, and the on-site remediation expenses. In one case, oil equipment requires a higher-pressure contamination occurred in the whole also a key challenge. rating (e.g. Type IV pressure vessels)16. system, causing 4 buses to be out of In the absence of green hydrogen supply service for 6 months to a year. HRS in large and affordable quantities through Component failure is likely to blame in this a larger production infrastructure, small- case, and the event went undetected due scale electrolyzers can be a decent to the lack of a monitoring device in the option to supply required hydrogen, HRS12. but will probably require subsidies

12 Fueling the future of mobility: Fuel cell buses

Figure 7. HRS KPIs (CHIC program)

Cologne Hamburg Whistler Aargau Bolzano London Milan Oslo

Country

External On-site External (Liquid On-site On-site (compressed On-site On-site HRS Supply Type External electrolyzer + delivery & electrolyzer + electrolyzer hydrigen electrolyzer electrolyzer External storage) External truck)

Offsite Offsite Offsite H2 or Power Offsite Alkali Offsite Renewables Renewables Renewables Offsite SMR Grid Renewables Supply Source electrolysis Renewables (hydropower, (hydropower) (hydropower) wind & solar)

Station Not 96% 98% 99% 99% 98% 98% 95% availability communicated

H2 Refueling capacity (kgH2/ 120 700 1000 300 350 320 200 250 day)

H2 Production capacity (kgH2/ N/A 260 N/A 130 390 N/A 215 260 day)

High SOC <10 min <10 min 20 min <10 min <10 min <10 min <10 min <10 min Refueling time

HRS Additional No Yes No No Yes No No No dispenser for cars

13 Fueling the future of mobility: Fuel cell buses

The mid-term prospects

In addition to the sustainability driven by high transport and refueling benefits that FCEB fleets bring to public station costs: By 2030, TCO of transportation, economic attractiveness – SMR-based hydrogen production is is paramount for the solution to become a well-known and widely deployed FCEBs is expected widely adopted. It is therefore crucial to process, incurring a standard Levelized to reach levels understand the drivers behind economic Cost of Hydrogen (“LCOH”) of ca. 1.7 €/ competitiveness and their evolution, kgH , with limited cost improvement through the analysis of current and 2 nearing 1€/km potential. However, the SMR route will future TCO of FCEBs in comparison with likely not be favored as the process ICE vehicles, based on assumed average (excl. driver’s costs), operating conditions. requires natural gas and emits carbon if CCUS is not in place. Furthermore, at par with ICE In 2021, the TCO of FCEBs (excluding labor) not all SMR facilities are able to produce is estimated to be almost double that of hydrogen with purity levels suitable for vehicles and driven conventional diesel buses. This result is driven by key gaps in the following cost FC mobility. by CAPEX (down to areas: – Hydrogen transport costs are expensive due to the limited dedicated pipeline • CAPEX includes high costs of fuel cell networks and the need for trailers ~ 325k€) and OPEX systems production, raising the total purchase price of FCEBs: (tube, container or liquid) to ship (H2 supply at ~ 2€/ – FCEBs are currently at ca. 650k€ for hydrogen. a single deck bus, which is more than – Distribution costs currently accounts kg) reduction. double the price of a diesel bus for a significant share of delivered – Hydrogen components account for 20% costs, driven by the expected small of the CAPEX costs, as storage tanks, scale and low utilization of hydrogen fuel cell stacks and batteries are yet to refueling stations in the short-term. reach technological maturity. Improvements in technology and – Significant mark-up currently exists on operating practices along with higher all components for FCEB due to the low utilization through larger FCEB fleets will number of buses manufactured. Prices significantly drive refueling cost down. for FCEBs have already declined by – In the absence of widespread 76% between first deployments in the large-scale electrolysis capacity to 1990s and 2015. It is expected that this supply hydrogen, on-site small-scale mark-up will gradually reduce along with electrolysis (~1MW) is the currently deployment at scale. preferred solution to supply the HRS, leading to high production costs. • OPEX includes currently high fuel costs,

Table 3: Assumptions for FCEB standard operating conditions

FCEB Type Single deck Hybrid FC/Battery powered, ~12m length

FCEB Life Expectancy 14 years

FCEB Availability 90%

FCEB Daily distance traveled 200 km

14 Fueling the future of mobility: Fuel cell buses

Figure 8. 2021 CAPEX & OPEX; FCEB vs. ICEB

CAPEX: 2021 FCEB vs CEB PEX per km: 2021 FCEB vs CEB k€ €/km m

-62% -48%

45 l/100km ICEB fuel 50 5 eﬃciency 1.35€/liter fuel Chassis & Body common elements to both FCEB 9 kgH2/100km FCEB fuel eﬃciency 2 cost, including & ICEB 7.1 €/kgH2 fuel cost, assuming H generated by Chassis, Body & Drive train for FECB similar to that of battery on-site small scale electrolyzer functioning at distribution Drive train 234 electric vehicle 48 high load factor 48 costs based on Refueling infrastructure cost estimated at 2019-2020 average in ~4.6€/kgH2 Fuel 05 France Additional mark-up due to non-mass production Components of vehicle 02 mark-up 5 Mark-up reduction when deployed at scale 24

Gross proﬁts Assumed 14% of vehicle price nsurance 0 Assumed as constant % of CAPEX 0 234 Includes Hydrogen storage tanks, fuel cell stack Favorable end of the range observed in test Hydrogen 30 (with associated BoP), and electric battery aintenance 035 programs Components 00 3 05 FCEB ICEB FCEB ICEB

Source: Deloitte China & Ballard Hydrogen and fuel cell solutions for transportation, “Hydrogen Refueling Analysis of Fuel Cell Heavy-Duty Vehicles Fleet”, US Department of Energy

Figure 9. TCO: FCEB vs ICEB 2021 €/km

-55% 2.51

OPEX 1.57

1.13

0.82 CAPEX 0.94

0.32

FCEB ICEB

15 Fueling the future of mobility: Fuel cell buses

By 2030, TCO of FCEBs is expected to manufacturing. to 5 tons of hydrogen/day is expected be at par with that of ICEBs, with levels • At-scale manufacturing of FCEBs would to lower hydrogen costs vs. current nearing 1€/km (excluding driver’s costs). serve to remove the currently observed small size electrolysis facilities (e.g., The reduction of FCEBs TCO is driven by mark-up prices. 1MW network-connected electrolyzers both CAPEX and OPEX decline. While the delivering ~ 400kg/day). Coupled with importance of CAPEX weighs most heavily • Overall price of FC buses is therefore technological improvements and a in the case of smaller passenger vehicles, expected to be lower, reaching a price of production at industrial scale, such both CAPEX and OPEX are almost equally ~€325k for a standard FC bus by the year electrolysers could deliver hydrogen at 1 important drivers of TCO reduction for 2030 . >2€/kg cost (ex-electrolyzer), at par with heavy-duty trucks and fuel cell buses. OPEX cost reduction drivers include conventional SMR+CCS technology. a decline in price and distribution of CAPEX cost reduction will be driven by – Disruptive processes such as E-TAC the decline of all components related to hydrogen: (Electrochemical, Thermally Activated hydrogen: • Hydrogen cost is the most important Chemical), developed by the Israeli company H2PRO – in which Bill Gates • The fuel cell system price will be driven OPEX driver. Fuel spend is predicted to recently invested 18.5M€ - could help by the industrialization and scale of significantly decline in the next 10 years, achieve costs even below 1€/kg. manufacturing fuel cell stacks and electric due to a combination of more efficient batteries leading to a reduction of costs vehicles and hydrogen supplied from • HRS Distribution costs will also contribute for the 2 items by about 65% in the next centralized sources that benefit from to lowering OPEX costs, as utilization 10 years. economies of scale. and scale are expected to increase – Indeed, the emergence of mid-sized with widespread adoption or large • Similarly, carbon fiber hydrogen storage mobility hubs, with electrolyzers of FCEB fleets, high level of Pan-European tanks’ costs are expected to decline, 10 to 40MW coupled with low-cost standardization, and joint-procurement driven by the standardization and scale of renewables, being able to deliver up initiatives.

Figure 10: TCO & CAPEX evolution for FCEB

TC: FCEB evolution CAPEX: FCEB evolution €/km k€

-60% -50%

25 50 PEX

Fue 05 Chassis, Body & 48 234 Drive train

nsurance 0 00 aintenance 324 035 Components 5 02 mark-up 00 0 Gross proﬁts 234 CAPEX 04 04 Hydrogen 30 Components 40 0 5 202 2030 202 2030

16 Fueling the future of mobility: Fuel cell buses

The way ahead

In this document we have provided an • By 2030, FCEBs are expected to reach Given the overview of the existing Fuel Cell bus a similar TCO as ICEBs, driven by a programs and available technology options, reduction in both CAPEX and OPEX currently high highlighting both current certainties and As a next step, larger deployments of Fuel major existing challenges Cell buses are required to achieve scale costs and limited • FCEBs have generally been able to meet and further reduce costs. Scaling up also the demand of bus operators, validating means reviewing which business model is infrastructure their performance in real operating best suited for a wide implementation of conditions FCEBs. available for FCEBs, • Operational and technological Currently, regional public authorities either improvements combined with cost launch competitive tenders in deregulated alternative business reduction efforts are required to make markets (e.g., London) or engage in FCEB and HRS competitive, not only negotiations with state-owned companies. models should be by implementing improvements in The winning or chosen bus operator would technology and operating practices then operate the specific route using adopted to deploy based on learnings from pilot programs, buses from its owned fleet. Passengers will but also by creating scale through Pan- pay fares to the regional public transport hydrogen buses at European standardization, regulation and authority to make use of the bus operator’s joint procurement programs. services. scale.

17 Fueling the future of mobility: Fuel cell buses

Figure 11. Illustrative traditional bus operations business model

Pay service fees Buys bus Regional public transport Bus operator Bus OEM authority Pay fares

Use service

Owner of bus Passengers

Given the currently high costs and limited hydrogen supply infrastructure. buses from bus OEMs which are part of a infrastructure available for Fuel Cell Recent small-scale demonstration European coalition to promote Fuel Cell buses, alternative business models should projects experimented with alternative transportation. Public transport authorities be adopted to deploy hydrogen buses business models that leveraged a larger received funding from the government and at scale. Indeed, it is not just a specific coalition of players across the value chain EU to pay for the buses. The authorities financing model that is required to cope working together to deploy FBECs and then signed a service agreement with bus with uncompetitive costs, but also the all the necessary infrastructure. As part operators to operate the buses, while implementation of projects with a scope of the Hyfleet:CUTE project, the public ensuring a hydrogen supply infrastructure that goes beyond the mere purchase of transport authorities bought Fuel Cell through a contract with a major hydrogen new vehicles to include the setup of a full provider.

Figure 12. Illustrative alternative business model

Government Hydrogen provider Funding Provide hydrogen infrastructure and supply Contract for hydrogen supply and infrastructure

Buy buses Pay service fee

Regional public Bus OEM Provide buses Bus operator transport authority

Pay fares Use services

Owner of bus Passengers

This alternative business model shows demand (operational FC buses on public through close alignment with coalition the strength of a coalition-based business transport routes). partners and allow for the possibility of model in addressing the challenges related reducing costs through joint procurement • Ensure balance between value creation to commercialization of Fuel Cell buses. initiatives. and value capture: The EU and the While this is not the only possible solution, respective governments have a high • Stimulate a steeper learning curve by working with a coalition offers many interest in positive environmental and sharing experiences and challenges. benefits for future large-scale deployment social impacts of FC bus deployments projects/programs: • Facilitate close involvement of public and are therefore also willing to provide authorities and government to create • Guarantee the full alignment of supply CAPEX funding to enable the setup of visibility and input for future policy (hydrogen production, distribution and supporting infrastructure. development. refueling station infrastructure) and • Enable scalability of the pilot programs

18 Fueling the future of mobility: Fuel cell buses

Glossary

BEV: Battery Electric Vehicle

CAPEX: Capital Expenditure

CHIC: Clean Hydrogen in European Cities

CNG: Compressed Natural Gas

FC: Fuel Cell

FCEB: Fuel Cell Electric Bus

FCEV: Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle

GHG: Greenhouse Gas

HRS: Hydrogen Refueling Station

ICEB: Internal Combustion Engine Bus

LCOH: Levelized Cost of Hydrogen

OEM: Original Equipment Manufacturer

OPEX: Operating Expenditure

TCO: Total Cost of Ownership

19 Fueling the future of mobility: Fuel cell buses

References

1. European Green Deal, European Commission 2. Greenhouse gas emissions from transport in Europe, European Environment Agency 3. A European Strategy for low-emission mobility, European Commission 4. Information sur la quantité de gaz à effet de serre émise à l'occasion d'une prestation de transport, SNCF 5. European Environment Agency 6. Plan Bus2025, RATP 7. Eco2mix, RTE France 8. Engagés contre le changement climatique, RATP 9. European Bus Projects - CHIC, High V.Lo City, HyTransit & 3Emotion Emerging results, FCH and Element Energy 10. The Fuel Cell Electric Powered Bus: A Hybrid Solution, Ballard 11. Van Hool website 12. CHIC project final report 13. Hydrogen Composite Tank Program, Quantum Technologies 14. CHIC project, HyFleet:CUTE, V.Lo-City, SunLine, Orange County program 15. Policy note, Clean bus for your city, CIVITAS 16. New Bus ReFuelling for European Hydrogen Bus Depots, FCH JU

20 Fueling the future of mobility: Fuel cell buses

Future of Mobility Contacts

Olivier Perrin Guillaume Crunelle Partner Partner Energy, Resources & Industrials Automotive Leader Monitor Deloitte Deloitte France France [email protected] [email protected]

Alexandre Kuzmanovic Jean-Michel Pinto Director Director Energy, Resources & Industrials Energy, Resources & Industrials Monitor Deloitte Monitor Deloitte France France [email protected] [email protected]

Pascal Lim Josephine Selchow Senior Consultant Senior Consultant Energy, Resources & Industrials Energy, Resources & Industrials Monitor Deloitte Monitor Deloitte France France [email protected] [email protected]

Kamil Mokrane Senior Consultant Energy, Resources & Industrials Monitor Deloitte France [email protected]

21 Deloitte refers to one or more of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited (“DTTL”), its global network of member firms, and their related entities. DTTL (also referred to as “Deloitte Global”) and each of its member firms are legally separate and independent entities. DTTL does not provide services to clients. Please see www. deloitte.com/about to learn more. In France, Deloitte SAS is the member firm of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited, and professional services are rendered by its subsidiaries and affiliates.

Deloitte is a leading global provider of audit & assurance, consulting, financial advisory, risk advisory and tax & legal services. With 312,000 professionals in 150 countries, Deloitte has gained the trust of its clients through its service quality for over 150 years, setting it apart from its competitors. Deloitte serves four out of five Fortune Global 500® companies.

Deloitte France brings together diverse expertise to meet the challenges of clients of all sizes from all industries. Backed by the skills of its 6,900 employees and partners and a multidisciplinary offering, Deloitte France is a leading player. Committed to making an impact that matters on our society, Deloitte has set up an ambitious sustainable development and civic commitment action plan.

Deloitte 6, place de la Pyramide – 92908 Paris-La Défense Cedex