Hydrogen Fuel Cell Bus Technology State of the ... - NEXTHYLIGHTS

Hydrogen Fuel Cell Bus Technology State of the Art Review 

Hydrogen Fuel Cell Bus 

Technology State of the Art 

Review 

Report Status: Version 3.1 

Report Date: 23 rd December 2010 

Last Updated: 23 rd February 2011 

Deliverable Number: 3.1 

Authors: R. Zaetta, B. Madden (Element Energy) 

Acknowledgement 

Acknowledgement 

This This project project is is co-financed co-financed by by funds funds from from the the 

European European Commission Commission under under 

FCH-JU-2008-1 FCH-JU-2008-1 Grant Grant Agreement Agreement Number Number 245133. 245133. 

The The project project partners partners would would like like to to thank thank the the EC EC for for establishing establishing the the 

New New Energy Energy World World JTI JTI framework framework and and for for supporting supporting this this activity. activity. 

The The research research leading leading to to these these results results has has received received funding funding from from the the European European Community´s Community´s Seventh Seventh Framework Framework 

Programme Programme (FP7/2007-2013) (FP7/2007-2013) for for the the Fuel Fuel Cells Cells and and Hydrogen Hydrogen Joint Joint Technology Technology Initiative Initiative under under grant grant agreement agreement n° n° 245133 245133

Hydrogen Fuel Cell Bus Technology State of the Art Review


Contact Details: 

- Ben Madden 

E-mail: ben.madden@element-energy.co.uk 

Phone: + 44 (0) 33 0119 0980 

- Roberto Zaetta 

E-mail: roberto.zaetta@element-energy.co.uk 

Phone: +44 (0) 330 119 0989 

Disclaimer: 

This document is the result of a collaborative work between NextHyLights 

Industry and Institute partners. The research involved extensive stakeholder 

consultation in locations around the world as well as feedback from the 

NextHyLights Industry Partners. 

The ideas presented in this document were reviewed by certain NextHyLights 

project partners to ensure broad general agreement with its principal findings and 

perspectives. However, while a commendable level of consensus has been 

achieved, this does not mean that every consulted stakeholder or NextHyLights 

Industry endorses the findings. 

1


Contents 

Key message from the study .......................................................................................4 

Executive summary .....................................................................................................5 

1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 10 

1.1 Hydrogen Bus Technologies .......................................................................... 12 

1.2 Hydrogen-fuelled Internal Combustion Buses ................................................ 13 

1.3 Hybrid Fuel Cell versus non-hybridised Fuel Cell Buses ................................ 14 

1.4 Hybrid Fuel Cell Bus designs ......................................................................... 17 

2 The Fuel Cell Bus Sector ................................................................................... 19 

2.1 Hydrogen bus value chain ............................................................................. 23 

2.2 Interaction with the fuel cell car supply chain ................................................. 24 

2.3 Market conclusions ........................................................................................ 25 

3 Fuel Cell Buses: Status and Evolution ............................................................... 26 

3.1 Current technical performances ..................................................................... 26 

3.2 Other technical issues ................................................................................... 30 

3.3 Capital cost trends ......................................................................................... 32 

3.4 Historic performance summary ...................................................................... 33 

4 Capital cost dynamics ........................................................................................ 34 

4.1 Aggregated Approach .................................................................................... 34 

4.2 Bottom-Up Approach – breaking down the cost structure .............................. 37 

4.3 Outlook to 2030 ............................................................................................. 43 

4.4 Capital cost dynamics summary .................................................................... 44 

5 Hydrogen Fuelling and Infrastructure ................................................................. 46 

5.1 Comments on the status of hydrogen refuelling stations for bus applications 48 

5.1.1 Hydrogen fuel cost ..................................................................................... 48 

5.1.2 Refuelling Station Performance ................................................................. 50 

5.2 CO2 emissions .............................................................................................. 54 

2


6 Comparison with Alternative Technologies ......................................................... 55 

6.1 Total Cost of Ownership ................................................................................ 59 

6.1.1 TCO at 2010 - 2014 costs .......................................................................... 60 

6.1.2 Total Cost of Ownership in 2015 - 2018 ..................................................... 62 

6.1.3 Total Cost of Ownership 2018 - 2022 ......................................................... 64 

6.1.4 Sensitivity to fuel prices ............................................................................. 66 

6.1.5 TCO analysis for other hybridisations ........................................................ 69 

6.1.6 Outlook to 2030 ......................................................................................... 70 

7 Conclusions ....................................................................................................... 71 

7.1 Next Generation of bus projects: what should be expected ........................... 76 

Annex A: International framework ............................................................................. 77 

Annex B: Hydrogen refuelling stations for bus applications – four case studies......... 96 

The hydrogen refuelling station in Hürth, Cologne .................................................. 96 

The hydrogen refuelling station project in Leyton, London ................................... 100 

The hydrogen refuelling station project in HafenCity, Hamburg ............................ 103 

The hydrogen refuelling station project in Whistler, British Columbia ................... 107 

Annex C: International Demonstrations ................................................................... 110 

Annex D: Interview Scripts for Fuel Cell Bus Stakeholders ..................................... 115 

Annex E: List of Principal Consultees ...................................................................... 127 

Bibliography of Annex A .......................................................................................... 128 

3


Key message from the study 

Hybrid fuel cell 1 bus technology provides one of the two viable zero emission bus 

options for the urban transit market (the other is an all-electric drivetrain, in e.g. Trolley 

buses). 

The technology is expected to provide a more flexible and cost effective solution (on a 

total cost of ownership basis) than trolley buses for new routes in the period between 

2015 and 2020, whilst it is expected to converge towards diesel-fuelled bus total 

ownership cost levels by approx. 2025/30. At this point the economics will be dictated by 

the relative price of diesel versus hydrogen fuel for bus operators. 

The key challenge facing the technology is to create sufficient demand for hybrid in the 

short term while the buses are more expensive than alternatives, in order to justify the 

technology developments required to achieve the 2025/30 goal. 

Euro / Km / Bus 

6.00 

5.00 

4.00 

3.00 

2.00 

1.00 

Total Cost Of Ownership (TCO): 

hybrid fuel cell buses in comparison with diesel , diesel hybrid and trolley buses (2010 - 2030) 

Cost projections based on a set of assumptions – please 

refer to the contents of this study 

0.00 

2010-2014 2015-2018 2018-2022 ~ 2025-2030 

Hybrid fuel cell buses : cost projections over time 

(150kW FC system) 

Diesel hybrid buses 

Diesel buses 

Trolley buses 

Alternative bus technologies 

as at 2015 - 2030 cost projections 

Taxes on fuel 

CO2 price 

Overhead contact wire network - maintenance 

Extra maintenance facility costs 

Bus Maintenance Fee 

Propulsion-related Replacement cost 

Untaxed fuel Cost 

Overhead contact wire network - Financing 

Bus Financing and Depreciation 

Figure 1 Total cost of ownership for different bus drivetrains today and into the future – 

assumes a 12m bus platform. Error bars represent upper and lower bound projections 

on ownership cost. Cost figures are expresses at 2010 money value. Figures 

assume an untaxed diesel fuel price of €0.58/litre. 

1 Hybridised fuel cell buses combine hydrogen-fuelled fuel cells with energy storage devices 

such as batteries, super-capacitors or a combination of both. 

4


Executive summary 

This document is a summary of the state of the art for hydrogen bus technology. The 

document is based on information available from recent international fuel cell bus 

demonstrations and from bilateral dialogues with key industry stakeholders and the bus 

operators (with experience of operating hydrogen vehicles) within the Hydrogen Bus 

Alliance and the CHIC project. The study looks at historical techno-economic 

performance of fuel cell buses, the cost structure of a hybrid fuel cell bus and the Total 

Cost of Ownership (TCO) in comparison with alternative bus technologies. 

Summary of the main conclusions of the analysis 

The fuel cell bus sector 

The number of competitors in the market has increased over time, with at least 12 

fuel cell bus providers and 9 fuel cell manufacturers competing for business in the 

international market. 

Of particular note, only 2-3 out of the six major European OEMs, have significant 

demonstration experience with hydrogen buses and are actively engaged in the 

sector. There is a general consensus among industry players that a wider 

participation of the larger players would be beneficial for the sector. 

Demonstration activity has occurred in waves, with a major increase in deployment 

around 2003, followed by a next wave based on so called „next generation‟ hybrid 

fuel cell buses which will enter service in the period 2010-2011. By the end of 2011, 

approx. 110 fuel cell buses will be in day to day service worldwide. 

Hybrid fuel cell buses – technical performance 

The analysis of historical performance data indicated that fuel cell bus performance 

is substantially improving over time. The table below provides a snapshot of the key 

metrics: 

5


Hybrid FC buses 

(12m platform, low floor) 

Fuel Economy* 

Current Values Next Generation 

8 – 15 kg/100km 

(up to 30% improvement over an 

equivalent diesel route at parity 

of calorific content) 

7 – 12 kg/100km 

(from 20% to 40% improvement 

over an equivalent diesel route at 

parity of calorific content) 

Range 250 – 450 km 250 – 450 km 

Availability** 55% - 80% 90% 

Refueling Time*** 7 – 10 minutes/bus 7minutes/bus? 

(It may depend on tank size) 

Diesel buses 

(12m platform, low floor) 

35 – 50 litre/100km 

(approx. 11 – 15kg- 

H2/100km at parity of 

calorific content) 

>> 400km 

90% 


Hybrid fuel cell bus trials, by contrast, have shown relatively poor availability (55- 

80%) in trials before 2010. These will need to be improved before the technology 

can be rolled out outside small demonstration trials. The next generation of hybrid 

fuel cell bus trials (starting 2010) are designed to prove that the technology can 

achieve availability standards over 90% which will be sufficient to begin to 

commercialise the technology. 

The next generation of bus demonstrations (such as those in the EC funded CHIC 

project 2 ) are also aimed at understanding the fuel economy of next generation FC 

buses. Initial tests suggest they will achieve the lower bound of the fuel consumption 

range, i.e. up to a 40% improvement over an equivalent diesel route (on a calorific 

equivalent basis). 

The main technical constraints for fuel cell buses, compared to conventional diesel 

vehicles are: 

o Availability – an equivalent operational availability compared to diesel 

vehicles has not yet been demonstrated for fuel cells in hybrid configurations. 

This is expected to be achieved in the next generation demonstrations. 

o Fill time – which is currently around 10 minutes (best available is 7 minutes), 

compared to a diesel fill times of approx. 3 minutes. This can create logistical 

problem for bus operators, particularly in tight urban depots. 

o Lack of infrastructure – meaning that dedicated hydrogen fuelling 

infrastructure is required at hydrogen bus depots – this is bulky and also 

requires very high availability as there are no local back-up options available 

Hybrid fuel cell buses – economic performance 

Diesel hybrid vehicles are currently gaining traction in the market for environmentally 

friendly urban buses. These have a total cost of ownership higher than diesel buses, 

suggesting public authorities are prepared to fund some additional cost of operating 

low emission vehicles. 

However, a Total Cost of Ownership analysis for today‟s fuel cell buses suggests 

that the cost of operating a fuel cell bus today is over three or four times that of a 

conventional diesel bus. This additional cost is not acceptable to bus operators, 

meaning the technology must reduce in cost to gain genuine commercial traction. 

There are two main approaches to cost reduction. In the first, progressive 

generations of fuel cell systems designed for buses are projected to reduce fuel cell 

system costs below €2,000/kW (from over €4,000/kW today), whilst increased 

2 http://chic-project.eu/ 

7


volumes of fuel cell buses reduce the costs for bus builders to assemble and sell the 

buses. This would reduce fuel cell bus costs to a lower bound of approximately 

€500,000 (for large orders) and an upper bound o €950,000 between 2015 and 

2018. This will require: 

o Next generation of fuel cell systems, with lower component costs and simpler 

manufacturing processes (expected to be launched 2013-2014) 

o the market experiencing standardisation in the hybrid manufacturing process, 

reducing labour costs and overheads for bus manufacturers 

o An increase in fuel cell bus sales (of the order of low 100s in the period 

2012-2015), which leads to economies of scale for buses and fuel cells and 

helps reduce some of the risk premium applied to FC buses by bus builders 

On a Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) basis, these buses are not expected to be able 

to compete with diesel bus technologies by 2015/18. They may, however, be able to 

gain some market traction on environmentally sensitive routes which would typically 

be serviced by trolley buses. It is therefore likely that subsidies will be also required 

beyond 2015/18 to support further increases in the size of the FC bus market. 

Beyond 2015, there are two paths being considered for further fuel cell bus cost 

reduction, which differ according to their approach to the fuel cell stack. In the first, 

volume sales for fuel cell passenger cars (from 2015 onwards) are expected to drive 

the costs of automotive stacks down to very low levels (low €100‟s of euros per kW 

for a fuel cell bus system based on a passenger car stack). These very low cost 

stacks can then be used in buses and offer low total costs of ownership, despite the 

relatively short lifetimes (automotive stacks are typically designed for only 5,000 hour 

life). Buses using passenger car based stacks have the potential to reduce costs 

well below €400,000 by 2022/25. 

The alternative approach is to continue to develop longer life fuel cell systems 

dedicated to the bus market. Here higher stack costs are offset by longer lifetimes. 

The development of these lower cost stacks is believed to require bus volumes in 

the 1,000‟s in the 2015 to 2020 period. Again there is potential to reduce overall bus 

costs to an affordable level by 2022/25. 

Concluding, Hydrogen bus technology is expected to provide a more flexible and 

cost effective solution (on a total cost of ownership basis) than trolley buses for new 

routes in the period between 2015 and 2020, whilst it is expected to converge 

towards diesel-fuelled bus total ownership cost levels by approx. 2025/30. At this 

point the economics will be dictated by the relative cost of diesel versus hydrogen. 

8


Refuelling facilities and bus refuelling 

Fuelling hydrogen buses allows very large refuelling facilities to be deployed, 

potentially with very long contract life. For a bus depot requiring 1,000kg/day, with a 

guaranteed requirement for over 10 years, the untaxed hydrogen costs at the pump 

(e.g. all-inclusive) could fall below €4-5/kg, even using today‟s fuelling technology. 

Given the increased efficiency of fuel cell buses, this can lead to approximately 

equal fuel costs compared to untaxed diesel options. Taxation regimes will vary this 

comparison. 

This suggests that infrastructure need not be a major barrier to increased FC bus 

rollout. 

Most of the existing refuelling stations for bus applications are currently based on 

trucked-in gaseous or liquid hydrogen, as centralized hydrogen production has 

proved to be more cost effective than on-site production technologies, particularly for 

the higher daily demands which characterise bus operation (compared with 

passenger cars). On-site production from electrolysis has tended to occur only 

where a very high priority is placed on zero carbon hydrogen, where on-site 

electrolysers can produce hydrogen from „green‟ electricity. On-site production tends 

to add a premium between 1.5 and 2 times the price of delivered hydrogen. 

For urban bus depots, there is often limited space for new fuelling equipment. This 

means station footprint can be an important factor in selecting the fuelling system of 

choice. Here, new designs are required for large scale fuelling (over 1,000kg/day), 

which will be compatible with future bus depots based on hydrogen. 

The refuelling time experienced by fuel cell bus operators ranges between 7 and 10 

minutes per bus, assuming 30 - 40kg of on-board hydrogen storage at 350bar. As 

typical refuelling times for diesel buses are less than 3 minutes/bus, the longer fill 

times for hydrogen buses risk causing an unacceptable level of inconvenience for 

transit operators when dealing with fleets of over 100 buses. 

This is a challenge for hydrogen buses which needs further work. Solutions could be 

logistical (e.g. fuelling more buses in parallel), practical (e.g. fuelling at different 

times of the day) or technical (e.g. increasing storage capacity on buses to allow 

fuelling only every two days) but are relatively unexplored to date. It is therefore 

recommended that these types of solutions are addressed in near term projects such 

as the CHIC project. 

9


1 Introduction 

Hydrogen buses have the potential to provide zero emission and ultra-low carbon public 

transport. Because of this potential there has been considerable research and 

demonstration effort dedicated to developing hydrogen bus technology. The technology 

is, however, not fully commercially mature and will require further public support in the 

coming years to stand on its own within the market. Work Package 3 of the 

NextHyLights project is aimed at understanding the pathway to achieving commercial 

maturity within the sector. 

This „State of the Art‟ document is intended to provide a review of the state of the art of 

hydrogen bus technologies, as well as providing insights into the barriers to widespread 

market introduction and how these barriers will evolve in the future. 

The document is a first main deliverable from work package 3 of the NextHyLights 

project. The work package aims to produce a roadmap to commercialisation for 

hydrogen bus technologies. This state of the art review is a key document underpinning 

the production of the roadmap and its associated technical and economic targets. 

The review begins with an overview of the current state of the technology and an 

assessment of the current market. Hydrogen buses are then compared to the current 

state of the art for alternative bus drivetrains to identify the main barriers to their wider 

adoption. The future dynamics of the sector are then analysed, to understand if and 

when those barriers may be overcome. 

The analysis is based on information sourced from:- 

o The work of the Hydrogen Bus Alliance 3 , who have an ongoing dialogue with the 

hydrogen bus industry as well as the range of operators of hydrogen buses. 

o A review of the literature on hydrogen fuel cell buses, particularly data from large 

national demonstration programs in Europe and North America 

o In depth interviews with the key players in the hydrogen bus and hydrogen 

infrastructure sectors. We consulted widely within the fuel cell, bus and hydrogen 

supply industries to reach these conclusions. A list of consultees is provided in the 

3 www.hydrogenbusalliance.org 

10


Annex E: List of Principal Consultees. 

The interviews were based on a dedicated „interview script‟, circulated in advance. The 

„scripts‟ were based on our best assessment of the state of the sector immediately 

before each interview, and were constantly updated. Copies of the latest versions are 

provided in Annex D: Interview Scripts for Fuel Cell Bus Stakeholders 

The data obtained has been anonymised, aggregated, and processed. The outputs of 

this process range from graphical exhibits on buses techno-economic performance to 

future capital and expenditure cost models. 

Structure of this report 

This report is structured in the following way: 

o Chapter 1 present a brief comparison between the three main hydrogen bus 

technologies 

o Chapter 2 provide a description of the fuel cell bus segment in terms of active bus 

demonstrations and industry players 

o Chapter 3 analyses the real-world performance of fuel cell buses in recent 

demonstrations 

o Chapter 4 explores hybrid fuel cell bus architecture and bus component costs, in 

order to analyse the likely evolution of technology costs in the 2010-2030 period 

o Chapter 5 deals with the specific infrastructure issues as they relate to hydrogen 

supply for buses 

o Chapter 6 compares the techno-economic performance of 12m platform hybrid fuel 

cell buses with alternative technologies on a like-for-like basis, both under a 

qualitative and quantitative (Total Cost of Ownership) point of view 

o Chapter 7 provides a set of conclusions from this study. 

11


1.1 Hydrogen Bus Technologies 

Hydrogen buses have evolved substantially in the last two decades. A number of 

different design configurations have been used, including hydrogen in internal 

combustions engines, and various fuel cell technologies. In addition, companies have 

used direct drive systems and hybrid drive systems, where an energy storage device 

(battery or ultra-capacitor) is included within the drivetrain to reduce peak loads and 

allow regenerative braking. 

1990 – 2000s : development and proof of the fuel cell bus concept 

2003 – 2009: realisation of the largest demonstration of fuel cell buses in permanent service (HyFleet:Cute) 

Today : examples of hybrid fuel cell buses currently in operation 

Figure 2 Selected fuel cell buses from 1990s to date. Source: public web resources. 

In this section we present a brief comparison between the three main hydrogen bus 

technologies which have been used in the past five years. We conclude that the bus 

industry appears to be settling on a consensus to use fuel cells in hybrid drivetrains as 

the platform to deliver commercially viable hydrogen buses. 

12


Finally, the concept designs of hybridised fuel cell buses are broken down in their key 

structural components in order to understand the architecture of the technology. 

1.2 Hydrogen-fuelled Internal Combustion Buses 

Hydrogen-fuelled internal combustion engine buses (H2-ICE) have also offered a 

significantly lower fuel economy than hybridised fuel cell buses 4 . In addition their 

exhaust is not strictly pollution-free, as some NOx is inevitably produced in the 

combustion process. Table 1, below, summarizes the performance of recent H2-ICE 

trials in comparison with hybridised fuel cell buses. 

Table 1 Performance of hybrid fuel cell buses in comparison with non hydrogen-fuelled 

internal combustion engine buses. 

Fuel Economy 

(kg of hydrogen consumed 

per 100km) 

Range 

(assuming a 40kg hydrogen 

storage capacity on-board) 

In-service Pollution 

(toxic emissions from 

exhausts) 

H2-ICE Hybridised Fuel Cell Bus 

15 – 21.6 kg/100km 

180 – 260 km 

Traces 5 of NOx 

Source: Hydrogen Bus Alliance, HyFEET:CUTE, stakeholders interviews. 

8 – 15 kg/100km 

250 – 450 km 

The observed availability of H2-ICE buses in demonstration projects is comparable with 

traditional diesel buses (~90%) and their capital costs are significantly lower than the 

current generation of hydrogen fuel cell buses. As a result, developers have considered 

pursuing H2-ICE-type designs as a transition to fuel cell buses. However, in recent years 

the major engine manufacturers (Ford and MAN) who were pursuing the technology 

have pulled back from H2-ICE, which has led to a shortage of viable engines for H2-ICE 

based buses. 

4 This fact has been proved by the HyFLEET:CUTE demonstration. 

5 The high temperature within the combustion chamber promotes the chemical reaction 

between the oxygen and nitrogen present in the air, producing oxides of nitrogen (NOx). 

None 

13


Whilst it is not possible to rule out a resurgence of H2-ICE interest, at this stage it 

appears unlikely that hydrogen buses will be commercialised based on H2-ICE 

technology and we focus instead on commercialisation pathways for hybrid fuel cell 

buses. If a developer of viable H2-ICE engines emerges before fuel cell hybrid have 

achieved their projected cost reduction (see below), there is likely to be a resurgence in 

interest in the use of H2-ICE buses. 

1.3 Hybrid Fuel Cell versus non-hybridised Fuel Cell Buses 

Early fuel cell bus designs involved an electric drivetrain, where a fuel cell generates 

electricity which is directly supplied to an electric motor. For example, the EvoBus buses 

operated for the CUTE program (Figure 3, below) used this drivetrain configuration. 

Figure 3: Architecture of the EvoBus fuel cell bus operated in the CUTE and 

HyFLEET:CUTE demonstration. Source: http://www.global-hydrogen-bus-platform.com/ 

However, the CUTE project (among others) showed that the direct coupling of the fuel 

cell to the motor has four significant disadvantages: 

1. Directly coupling the fuel cell to the motor exposes the fuel cell to the dynamic 

profile of the bus‟s drive cycle. This spiky demand on the fuel cell tends to 

degrade the fuel cell quickly and reduces fuel cell life. 

2. By operating the fuel cell over the full range of its operating characteristics, the 

cell is often moved away from its peak efficiency, reducing overall performance. 

3. The requirement to meet the full peak load with the fuel cell means very large 

fuel cell systems are required for peak power provision. 

14


4. There is no mechanism to capture the kinetic energy dissipated when the bus 

operator applies the brakes. 

In the light of these problems, all of the main fuel cell bus developers have now moved 

to a fully hybridised mode, with the fuel cell operating in a series hybrid configuration 6 . In 

a hybrid mode, all of the above problems can be overcome, as the energy store buffers 

peak loads and allows regenerative braking (Figure 4, below). In these „next generation‟ 

fuel cell buses, developers are still experimenting with the energy storage device, which 

can be batteries, ultra capacitors, or a combination of both 7 . 

Figure 4 Layout of the hybrid drivetrain configuration for hybrid fuel cell buses. The 

drivetrain can include either a battery system or ultra-capacitors or a combination of 

both. 

6 One of the earlier public demonstrations of hybridised FC buses was performed by Toyota and 

Hino under the Japan Hydrogen and Fuel Cell program (JHFC) in 2002. Hybridised designs, 

however, became the dominant choice only from 2005. The largest fleet demonstration ever 

programmed started in occasion of the 2010 Winter Olympic Games in British Columbia, 

Canada, performing 20 hybridised buses. Today, every demonstration of fuel cell buses is based 

on hybridised architectures. 

7 For example, the new Evobus Citaro hybrid uses batteries only, the new Wrightbus hydrogen 

bus for London will only use ultra-capacitors and the APTS bus for Amsterdam and Cologne will 

use a combination of both. 

15


The integration of energy storage systems with fuel cell modules has proved to be far 

more efficient than designs adopting fuel cell modules alone 8 . Table 2, below, 

summarises typical performance of the two technologies. 

Table 2 Performance of hybrid fuel cell buses in comparison with non hybridised fuel cell 

buses. 


(kg of hydrogen consumed 

per 100km) 

Range 

(assuming a 40kg hydrogen 

storage capacity on-board) 

Non-hybridised Fuel Cell 

Bus 

20 – 24.5 kg/100km 

160 – 200 km 

Hybridised Fuel Cell Bus 

8 – 15 kg/100km 

250 – 450 km 

Source: Hydrogen Bus Alliance, HyFEET:CUTE, stakeholders interviews. 

The hybridised systems have, however, still to prove the high availability standards 

achieved by the non-hybridised fuel cell buses in the HyFLEET:CUTE demonstration. 

The most recent demonstration of hybridised designs has shown availabilities generally 

below 80% against an average 92% achieved in the HyFLEET:CUTE demonstration. 

These next generation hybrid buses are at the beginning of their demonstration life. 

Most bus developers report that the availability problems come from problems in power 

electronics or energy storage systems as opposed to the fuel cell itself. As a result, 

similar improvements in availability to those experienced with diesel hybrid drivetrains 

can be expected. 

Hybridised designs are constantly being improved, and benefit from synergies with 

hybrid diesel buses - a technology which is entering serial production both in the USA 

and Europe. Hybrid fuel cell buses share the same components of the electric drivetrain 

with hybrid diesel buses, when used in a series hybrid configuration. The consolidation 

of the hybrid diesel electric manufacturing process is therefore expected to help in the 

optimisation of the hybrid-electric powertrains. 

8 The development of the hybridised FC bus concept design was one of the achievements of the 

HyFLEET:CUTE demonstration, as a mean to halve the fuel consumption of fuel cell-powered 

buses (www.global-hydrogen-bus-platform.com). 

16


1.4 Hybrid Fuel Cell Bus designs 

As described above, the hydrogen bus sector appears to have settled on a hybridised 

fuel cell system as the drivetrain of choice for hydrogen fuelled buses. 

Hybridised systems offer trade-offs between energy storage capacity and fuel cell power 

output, allowing a range of different configurations. For example: 

New Flyer/Ballard (BC Transit bus demonstration – 12m platform) 

Battery Capacity: 47kWh, Fuel Cell system: nominal max output 150kW 

Van Hool/UTC (AC Transit bus demonstration – 12m platform) 

Battery Capacity: 54kWh, Fuel Cell system: nominal max output 120kW 

Skoda Electric/Proton Motor (Neratovice bus demonstration – 12m platform): 

Battery: 100kW/27kWh, Ultra-capacitors: 200kW/0.32 kWh, Fuel Cell system max 

output: 48kW 

EvoBus/AFCC (Hamburg Hochbahn bus demonstration – 12m platform) 

Battery: 250kW/26.9kWh, Fuel Cell systems max output: 140kW (two units of 75kW) 

Wrightbus/Ballard (Transport for London demonstration – 12m platform) 

Super-capacitors: 180kW/0.6kWh, Fuel Cell system: nominal max output 75kW 

APTS/Ballard (e.g. Regionalverkehr Köln bus demonstration – 18m platform) 

Battery: 100kW/25kWh, super-capacitors 100kW/2kWh, Fuel Cell system: nominal 

max output 150kW 

A third hybridised configuration is known as „Battery Dominant’. An example is the 

Proterra bus concept: 

Proterra/Hydrogenics (e.g. Burbank bus demonstration – 10m platform) 

Battery Capacity: 55kWh, Fuel Cell system: nominal max output 32kW (two units of 

16kW) 

In battery-dominant designs, the fuel cell system is considered a „range extender‟, which 

recharges the battery during the drive cycle. The batteries themselves provide the main 

motive power for the bus. 

All the hybridised fuel cell bus designs present common structural elements. Table 3, 

below, provides a schematic description. 

17


Table 3 Description of the principal structural components of hybrid fuel cell buses. 

Item Characteristics Remarks 

Bus Body 18, 12, 10, and 6 meter platforms 

have all been used. 

Bus Chassis Similar to diesel / diesel Hybrid. 18, 

12, 10, and 6 meter platforms. 

Fuel Cell System Fuel cell systems are based on 

Proton Exchange Membranes 

(PEM) stacks. Power output ranges 

between 10kWe to 200KWe, 

depending on bus platform and 

manufacturer. 

Power 

Electronics 

Warranties up to 15,000 hours. 

Various – offered as ad hoc 

packages by integrator firms or 

directly by fuel cell / bus 

manufacturers. 

Electric Motor DC, AC induction, 

Asynchronous/Synchronous AC, 

Permanent Magnet Synchronous 

Energy Storage 

System 

Fuel Cell Cooling 

System 

Hydrogen 

Storage System 

Power generally ranges from 25kW 

to 240kW. 

Energy storage systems are 

generally based on battery packs 

(either NiMH or Li-ion) and/or ultracapacitors 

(generally up to 100 

kW). Maximum power output and 

storage capacity varies depending 

on hybrid architecture. 

The majority of the stack 

manufacturers use liquid cooled 

systems, with radiators to dissipate 

heat. 

Hydrogen storage systems are 

generally based on Type III cylinder 

technology, storing compressed 

hydrogen at a pressure of 350bar. 

CNG bus bodies are often used (thanks to 

similar structural requirements for roofmounted 

fuel tanks). 

- 

Near term targets: extended warranties from 

15,000 to 20,000hours (2015 target). 

The power electronics and system controls 

currently provide the most significant 

availability problems for FC buses. The next 

generation of buses are expected to solve 

these problems. 

Strong synergies with hybrid diesel buses. 

The electric motor can be either a single main 

motor or hub–mounted (where the motor is 

designed within the wheel). 

Near and long term targets for the energy 

storage systems are higher energy densities, 

faster charging time and reduction of battery 

weight. 

- 

The next generation hybrid bus range is 

generally considered satisfactory for city 

transit services (>250km) at current storage 

pressures. Higher pressures (700 bar), 

however, have been suggested to improve 

bus fuelling logistics (more hydrogen on the 

bus could mean refuelling required only every 

second day). 

18


2 The Fuel Cell Bus Sector 

The fuel cell bus sector has been constantly expanding over the last 10 years, showing 

an increasing number of „in revenue service‟ demonstration projects. Figure 5, below, 

summarises the cumulative number of fuel cell buses in transit demonstrations between 

2002 and 2010 and the number of buses in operation by 2011 according to currently 

planned activities. The figure also reports the main international deployment targets. It is 

worth noting that the figures after 2009 refer only to hybridised fuel cell designs. 

Number of Buses 

1000 

100 

10 

Fuel Cell buses in service: historical data and selected 

international targets 

Cumulative number of buses 

(hist. data) 

CaFCP Zbus target (upper value) 

China target 

HBA target 

JTI and HBA target 

JTI target 

MKE target 

SHHP target 

Figure 5 Cumulative number of fuel cell buses in operation and selected international 

deployment targets between 2010 and 2020. 2011 data include preliminary data of the 

CHIC demonstration, and assumes that a number of demonstrations active through 

2010 will be still running in 2011. 

Bus deployment has tended to occur in waves, with a substantial increase in activity 

around the time of the CUTE trial in 2003-4 and a new wave of „next generation buses‟ 

entering service between 2010 and 2011. 

Over 110 hybridised fuel cell buses will be operative worldwide by 2011. The main sites 

which have been announced for the next generation bus trials will be: 

Amsterdam/Cologne – 4 new APTS buses from 2011 

AC Transit – a fleet of up to 16 Van Hool buses arriving during 2010 

19


BC Transit – 20 New Flyer buses operating from the winter Olympics 2010 

Hamburg – a fleet of 10 new EvoBus vehicles operating from early 2011 

London – 8 new ISE/Wrightbus vehicles operating from late 2010 

All of these sites will use hybridised fuel cell buses. In addition, a number of other 

locations are in the final stages of commercial negotiation. 

The main international fuel cell demonstration activities from 2002 to 2010 are reported 

in the Annex C. The demonstrations have been selected according to two criteria: 

Demonstration of buses in public transit projects (e.g. in-revenue service). 

Military or university demos have been excluded. 

Demonstration no older than CUTE (2002 - 2003). 

The analysis of these demonstrations allows an identification of the most active industry 

firms in fuel cell bus demonstration. Figure 6, below, reports the principal fuel cell bus 

manufacturers against the cumulative number of fuel cell buses produced. 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

Bus manufacturers' experience on Fuel Cell Buses 

(units produced in the last 7 years) 

APTS 

EvoBus 

Hino 

Hyundai 

IVECO 

Marcopolo 

New Flyer 

Proterra 

Rampini ZEV 

SAIC 

Van Hool 

Technobus 

Figure 6 Buses manufacturers experience in FCB demonstrations expressed as number 

of buses provided by 2011. Figures include preliminary data from the newly initiated 

CHIC project. 

20


The bus manufacturer segment is populated by a number of competitors, offering 

different expertise and services. Some firms are able to manufacture whole bus 

solutions (e.g. EvoBus, Proterra), whilst a larger number are based on a bus platform, 

which is then adapted by a fuel cell provider or systems integrator (e.g. ISE/Wrightbus or 

Vossloh/APTS). In these arrangements, the bus manufacturer plays a reduced role in 

delivering the project – the bulk of the work being carried out by the integrators or fuel 

cell system supplier. 

From Figure 6 the bus segment can be characterised as having 3-4 players with a 

significant demonstration experience (notably EvoBus and Van Hool), with a number of 

players entering the space to gain first operational experience with new, smaller trials. 

Figure 7, below, summarises the principal fuel cell system manufacturers against the 

cumulative number of buses powered. 

The market of fuel cell system is again populated by a number of international 

competitors, although it is currently dominated by few firms (Ballard and UTC). 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

FC manufacturers' experience on Fuel Cell Buses 

(number of buses powered in the last 7 years ) 

AFCC 

Ballard 

Hydrogenics 

Hyundai 

Nuvera 

Proton Motor 

Shen Li 

Toyota 

Figure 7 FC manufacturers experience in FCB demonstrations expressed as number of 

buses powered by 2011. Figures include preliminary data from the newly initiated CHIC 

project. 

It should be noted, however, that both in the bus and FC system segments an increasing 

number of firms are becoming active in the sector over time. Figure 8, below, plots the 

most active FC bus and fuel cell system manufacturers against time. The year of 

reference is defined as the year of operation of the first FC bus provided or powered. 

UTC 

21


The number of competitors in the FC bus market has slowly increased in time, showing 

a substantial increase in the last two years. This increment is partially due to the 

entrance into the market of Chinese and Brazilian firms through the UNDP Fuel Cell Bus 

program, as well as European firms through new purchase orders made by the 

members of the Hydrogen Bus Alliance (HBA) and North American transit agencies. 

Cumulative number of firms 

14 

12 

10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

0 

Number of competitors in the FC bus market 

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 

Bus Manufacturers FC Manufacturers 

Figure 8 Cumulative number of firms active in the FC bus market against time. The 

figure reports the number of firms that provided or powered at least one fuel cell bus for 

any given year. Data for 2010 includes projects planned to be operative by 2010-2011. 

The penetration of new competitors in the fuel cell bus market has been promoted by the 

initiation of a new wave of demonstration projects, which has led to new investments in 

the sector. 

22


2.1 Hydrogen bus value chain 

The value chain of hybridised fuel cell buses involves a larger number of stakeholders. 

These firms provide highly specialised components or services, such as the hydrogen 

storage system, the electric powertrain and integration services. Figure 9, below, 

summarises the typical value chain of hybrid FC buses. 

OEM 

FC 

manufacturers 

Specialty Firms 

Integrators 

Fuel Cell 

System 

Body Chassis 


Storage 

systems 

= component manufacturer / service provider 

Battery 

= may manufacture the component or provide the service 

Power 

electronics 

Electric 

Motors 

Vehicle 

Integration 

Vehicle 

Testing 

Figure 9 Schematic of the value chain for hybrid fuel cell buses. Dark blue shows the 

specialty for each stakeholder. In light blue are marked service and components that can 

be provided by the different stakeholders. 

Schematically, the value chain presents nine key elements in delivering an operational 

hybrid fuel cell bus, from the manufacturing of the fuel cell system to the vehicle testing 

(this latter being generally performed before and during the in-revenue operation of the 

bus). 

Some OEMs, the bus manufacturers, have a comprehensive presence on most of the 

value chain, typically through controlled firms (this is the case for Daimler through 

AFCC, EvoBus etc., for example). 

23


2.2 Interaction with the fuel cell car supply chain 

Whilst all stakeholders agree than rapid growth in the passenger car market for fuel cells 

will help expand the overall supply chain for fuel cells, there are two competing views of 

how fuel cell buses might be affected by developments within the fuel cell powered 

passenger car segment. 

The view tends to depend on whether the stakeholder has a major stake in the 

automotive fuel cell developments. The key distinction is whether or not the bus market 

is driven by progresses in the fuel cell car market: 

OEM – driven: the FC bus segment is seen as more developed than the fuel cell car 

segment, but ultimately the latter will drive the whole vehicle market. Accordingly, 

bus cost and performance are expected to be strongly dependent on the actual 

results that will be achieved by the fuel cell car segment. 

Fuel Cell Manufacturer (not auto) – driven: the fuel cell automotive market is 

expected to be driven by the car segment in the long term, but specialised fuel cells 

for buses are projected to be able to achieve a commercial market introduction 

independent of the passenger car segment. 

It is worth noting that there is not a consensus within the industry on this issue to date. 

This difference in outlook leads to two different strategies for fuel cell bus development 

and hence for the commercialisation of the technology which are discussed in the 

following chapters. 

24


2.3 Market conclusions 

The bus market has a much more fragmented supply chain than the passenger car 

segment. Conventional buses are often built by two separate companies, one supplying 

the chassis and the other the bus body and bus operators often deal with more than one 

company for the maintenance of a single bus. This fragmentation is reflected in the 

supply chain for hydrogen fuel cell buses, where some buses are built by a dedicated 

OEM and others are built by consortia that supply different aspects of the bus. 

The fuel cell bus market has developed in phases, with an initial deployment led by 

Europe‟s CUTE project around 2002-3, followed by a new wave of “next generation” 

hybrid buses which will go into service between 2010-11. 

The fuel cell bus market has historically been dominated by a limited number of players 

(EvoBus, Van Hool and New Flyer for buses and Ballard and UTC for fuel cells) and 

currently only 2-3 major European manufacturers (out of the six major European OEMs) 

have made significant investments in hydrogen bus technologies. These are, most 

notably, EvoBus and Van Hool for fuel cell buses and MAN who have invested in 

Hydrogen ICE buses, but recently moved away from further bus demonstration in the 

short term. 

The new wave of next generation buses will bring an increasing number of players to the 

market but there is a general consensus within the existing fuel cell bus players that 

more of the large players investing in the technology would increase competition, 

helping to accelerate the cost reduction process, and increase the overall confidence of 

the bus industry in the technology. 

25


3 Fuel Cell Buses: Status and Evolution 

In this section we summarise the real-world performance of fuel cell buses in recent 

demonstrations. The information collected provides a quantitative analysis of the fuel cell 

bus segment‟s status and insights on its evolution. 

In gathering and consolidating this information, we faced several difficulties due to the 

inherent differences between the demonstrations selected. Performance data were 

available only for a restricted number of demonstrations, having typically a small pilot 

fleet of 5 or fewer buses. In addition the data results spread over a wide range of values, 

reflecting:- 

• Different bus platforms (6, 10 and 12m demonstrations have taken place) and fuel 

cell systems 

• Different driving cycles 

• Different climates and operating conditions (e.g. AC, ventilation, hilly versus flat etc.) 

The values collected should be interpreted accordingly. To ensure consistency of the 

outputs, only 12 and 10 metre bus platforms have been considered. 

The lack of test protocols for fuel cell buses makes the comparison of demonstration 

data difficult, and limits any definitive conclusions on the merits of different hybridised 

bus designs. The historic data gathered, however, describe the overall state of the 

technology well. 

3.1 Current technical performances 

Figure 10, Figure 11 and Figure 12, below, display historical data for three key technical 

performance indicators of fuel cell buses: availability, range and fuel economy. The 

figures also show selected international performance targets by 2015, for comparison 

purposes. 

26


% 

100 

90 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

Hybrid Fuel Cell 

buses 

Availability (%) 

Non hybridised FC 

buses 

(HYFLEET:CUTE) 

2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 

Historical Data 

DOE target 

HBA target 

JTI target 

Figure 10 Evolution of fuel cell bus availability and some international targets (by 2015). 

Bus availability is defined as the percentage of days of actual service compared to the 

number of day of scheduled service over the year. The ratio should exclude downtimes 

for planned maintenance 9 

km 

600 

500 

400 

300 

200 

100 

0 

Range (km) 

Non-hybridised FC buses (CUTE 

and HyFLEET:CUTE demos) 

Hybrid FC buses 

2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 


DOE target 

MKE target 

Figure 11 Evolution of the fuel cell bus range in comparison with some international 

targets (by 2015). 95% confidence limits are shown where data were available. 

9 This is compatible with HyFLEET:CUTE’s availability definition: “the ratio of time buses were 

not in maintenance to the total timeframe of the project operation expressed as a percentage”. 

27


kg H2 / 100 km 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

Fuel Economy (kg/100km) 

Nonhybridised 

FC 

buses 

Hybrid FC 

buses 

2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 


HBA target 

JTI target 

Figure 12 Evolution of the fuel cell bus fuel economy in comparison with some 

international targets (by 2015). 

The data displayed above show that fuel cell bus performance is improving through time. 

The main conclusions from this analysis can be summarised as follows: 

Availability: 

• The highest availability ever reached to date, 92%, was achieved by non-hybridised 

fuel cell buses in the HyFLEET:CUTE demonstration. It is important to note that this 

was a well-controlled trial (with dedicated maintenance technicians at each site) and 

did not involve a hybrid drivetrain. 

• The worst availability recorded for hybrid fuel cell buses refer to some North 

American demonstrations which, in contrast to the CUTE and HyFLEET:CUTE 

demonstrations, were far less controlled by on-site technicians and were better 

characterized as one-off prototypes than a dedicated trial. 

• In general, hybrid fuel cell buses have not consistently met such high availability as 

non-hybrid variants, showing values lower that 80% in most of the demonstrations 

considered here. The achievement of a level of availability equal to conventional 

diesel buses is one of the key aims of the next generation of hybrid fuel cell buses, 

to be introduced in 2010-11. 

• The main cause of the poor availability has been the novelty of hybridised designs. 

Causes of failure have centred on power electronics, batteries, control systems and 

integration issues. The HyFLEET:CUTE demonstration proved that fuel cell buses 

can achieve very high availability standards. There is no fundamental reason why 

28


hybrid fuel cell buses will not reach the same high availability as soon as the 

technology has matured. 

Hybridised designs are constantly improving, and benefit from synergies with hybrid 

diesel buses in the optimisation of electric drivetrains. 

Range: 

• Bus range is generally satisfactory, especially for city transit services. For larger 

semi-rural routes (e.g. the BC Transit routes in Whistler) there are still some issues 

where ranges over 450km are required. However, these can be mitigated with more 

hydrogen tanks on the vehicle, at the expense of greater vehicle weight. 

• Hybridised fuel cell buses show higher ranges, thanks to their superior fuel 

economy. 

Fuel Economy: 

• In all the demonstrations analysed, hybridised designs show far better fuel efficiency 

than non-hybridised designs. 

• Fuel economy of hybridised fuel cell buses is clearly improving over time, showing 

impressive results for best in class trials. 

• The lack of trials with common drive cycle characteristics makes data interpretation 

difficult. OEMs and public authorities should be encouraged in promoting common 

test protocols in order to ensure the comparability of different bus performance data. 

• The next generation of hybrid fuel cell bus demonstrations (such as CHIC) are also 

aimed at understanding the fuel economy of next generation FC buses. Here, it will 

be important to ensure that results can be compared at least against equivalent 

diesel buses on the same routes. 

In conclusion, future demonstrations should target high levels of availability, at least 

comparable with existing diesel buses (90%), in order to make the technology attractive 

to end users. 

In addition demonstrations should target the most efficient end of the current fuel 

economy range, in order to maximise the benefits of the technology. 

29


3.2 Other technical issues 

A number of other technical issues are relevant to bus operators when considering 

hydrogen vehicle purchase. These include: 

Noise: 

The noise of urban buses is a major drawback of an efficient public transport option. 

The main noise from a conventional bus is from the diesel engine. As the fuel cell 

system itself is silent, it should be possible to dramatically improve the noise levels 

emanating from a fuel cell bus. On many of the early fuel cell buses, various point 

sources of noise meant that the buses were not truly silent. In particular air 

compressors to pressurize the inlet air for the fuel cell stack have cause high pitched 

noise issues. Fuel cell system integrators envisage these issues being resolved with 

next generation air compressors and lower pressure stacks. 

Table 4 Current noise performance of basic diesel and hybrid fuel cell buses in 

comparison with the European noise limit in force for the external environment. The 

EU limit is intended for vehicles carrying more than 9 passengers and having a mass 

exceeding 3.5 tons. 

Condition EU Limit Basic diesel bus Hybrid fuel cell bus 

Engine power 

< 150kW 

78db ~ 78db < 75db 

Source: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/noise/sources.htm; stakeholders‟ consultation 

Weight: 

The additional weight of hydrogen tanks and the fuel cell balance of systems 

compared to a diesel bus increase the load on the axle and can lead to restrictions in 

the number of standing passengers allowed. Table 5, below provides some 

indication of the effect of additional weight on some of the recent hydrogen buses, 

compared to their diesel equivalent and the effect on passenger carrying capacity. 

30


Table 5 Typical weight and passenger capacity for diesel and hybrid fuel cell buses 

Typical Diesel bus 

(12m platform) 

Hybrid Fuel Cell Bus 

(12m platform) 

Kerb Weight up to 12 tonne up to 2.5 tonnes additional 

weight 

Passenger Capacity 

(overall) 

Source: Web resources, Stakeholders‟ consultation. 

up to 110 passengers Reduced by additional weight 

(up to 30 passengers less) 

The reduction in passenger capacity may present a problem for bus companies on 

very busy urban routes. However, future buses are likely to reduce this weight 

penalty compared with diesel buses. The main solution to reducing weight has been 

to reduce the hydrogen carrying capacity of the vehicle. This can be achieved with 

the increased efficiency of the hybridised drivetrains in next generation buses. Other 

weight improvements are foreseen from reduction in balance of plant weight and 

improvements to the overall drivetrain packaging, where hundreds of kilograms of 

savings have been achieved in the current generation of fuel cell buses. 

Refuelling time: 

One of the major constraints for bus operators is the refuelling time for hydrogen 

buses. Large bus operators typically refuel all of the buses in their depot in a short 

window at the end of their service at night. With depots containing over 200 buses in 

some cases this lead to a requirement for very rapid fill times. Fill times below 5 

minutes for diesel buses are common. Filling over 30kg of hydrogen in less than 5 

minutes is not currently feasible without pre-cooling the hydrogen (as the 

temperature increase at these high fill rates would damage the hydrogen tanks). This 

is a major constraint. Potential solutions are technical (e.g. cooling the hydrogen), 

relate to infrastructure (e.g. filling to 700 bar, to fill more hydrogen and allow less 

frequent fuelling) or logistical, (e.g. change depot layouts and filling patterns to allow 

longer filling periods). The logistical solutions are the least favoured by bus operators 

and will act as a barrier to entry for hydrogen vehicles unless a technical solution is 

developed. 

31


3.3 Capital cost trends 

Figure 13, below, displays historical data on fuel cell bus capital cost in comparison with 

HBA and Canadian targets. The figure shows capital costs decreasing through time, 

suggesting an evolution towards the 2015 targets. The cost trajectory between 2010 and 

2015, however, is far from clear. In Section 4, below, we explore the perception of all the 

major industry players in order to analyse the possible dynamics for the 2010-2020 

window. 

€, millions 

3.5 

3.0 

2.5 

2.0 

1.5 

1.0 

0.5 

Bus Capital Costs (€, millions) 

0.0 

2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 


HBA upper target 

HBA lower target 

Figure 13 Historical capital cost data for fuel cell buses (2003 - 2010 data), and selected 

international targets by 2015 

32


3.4 Historic performance summary 

A snapshot of the performance of today‟s hybrid FC buses is provided in Table 6, below. 

Table 6 Performance of state of art hybrid fuel cell buses (12m, Low Floor) 

Item Data Range Average Values Comment 

Capital Cost 

(2009 - 2010) 

€1.3 – 1.8 million --- By comparison, the typical 

diesel bus (12m platform) 

costs is €170,000-200,000 

depending on specification. 

Fuel Economy 8 – 15 kg/100km ~ 10 kg/100km Including ACHV and Electrical 

Load 

Range 250 – 450 km ~ 350 km Including ACHV and Electrical 

Load 

Availability 55% - 92% 80% The upper bound has been 

achieved in the 

HyFLEET:CUTE 

demonstration. Lower values 

are from less successful early 

trials 

It is possible to conclude that fuel cell bus technology is evolving towards meeting the 

main technical metrics for commercial success. The main requirement for next 

generation trials is to prove that the hybridised fuel cell architecture can perform at a 

level of availability that is acceptable for the buses to act as replacement for 

conventional diesel fuelled vehicles. Given the success of achieving these levels during 

the HYFLEET:CUTE project, it is realistic to expect that once the initial „teething 

troubles‟ are ironed out, the hybrid fuel cell vehicles will achieve these levels in the next 

generation trials starting 2010. 

The capital cost of the buses is still some way off the levels required for commercial 

viability. Current costs are 4-7 times the level of an equivalent diesel bus. Trends for the 

cost of hybrid fuel cell buses will be discussed at length in the following section. 

33


4 Capital cost dynamics 

In this section we analyse stakeholders‟ perspectives on fuel cell bus and bus 

component costs, in order to analyse the likely evolution of technology costs in the 2010- 

2020 period. 

We interviewed the majority of the players in the fuel cell bus sector. The data collection 

was based on interview scripts, used as a guide for bilateral interviews held 

confidentially. The data has been anonymised, aggregated and finally processed in 

order to provide the outputs summarised in this section and in Section 5.2. 

We adopted two approaches to analyse bus capital costs: 

In the Aggregated Approach, stakeholders were asked about their perception of 

bus cost and cost dynamics (i.e. cost reduction in time due to technology 

improvements and cost reductions for increasing order volumes). 

In the Bottom-Up approach the cost structure of fuel cell buses is broken down 

into its main components. Stakeholders are asked about cost, performance and 

warranty of each component. 

4.1 Aggregated Approach 

All of the industry stakeholders interviewed agreed on two different but related effects in 

driving the cost of hybrid fuel cell buses. The first is a pure learning effect in the near 

term, e.g. in the 2010 – 2015 window, where technology improvement helps drive down 

costs. Most fuel cell manufacturers are evolving their system generations towards a 

commercial product. Each evolution brings cost reductions through ease of 

manufacturing and reduced materials costs. This improvement in time has a significant 

effect by 2015, when a next generation of fuel cell systems will be available. 

The second effect is related to the achievement of an early economy of scale beyond 

2014 – 2015 (i.e. the achievement of a large volume of sales per year). This vision is 

reflected by Figure 14, below. 

34


Million € 

2 

1.8 

1.6 

1.4 

1.2 

1 

0.8 

0.6 

0.4 

0.2 

Hybrid Fuel Cell Bus Cost - relation between time and volume 

Volume per year: 

10 - 100 buses 


10 - 100 buses 


20 - 200 buses 

0 

2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 

Industry's Projections 


500 - 1,000 buses 

Figure 14 Cost/volume dynamics over time based on industry‟s perspective. Original 

data has been anonymised into data intervals. The intervals summarise bus cost 

projections for different minimum bus sales volume per year. Figures are in millions of 

Euro (exchange rate assumed: 1€ = 1.4$). 

Figure 15, below, summarizes the gathered stakeholders‟ cost projections against time 

only in comparison with the historical data reported in Section 3.3. For comparison 

purposes, Figure 15 displays the upper bound for the commercial entry of the fuel cell 

bus technology, which is based on an assumption of an early market in subsidized and 

environmentally sensitive markets (where e.g. tram systems operate today) and a 

commercial target as suggested by the members of the Hydrogen Bus Alliance (HBA). 

The commercial target represents bus costs comparable with the more expensive diesel 

hybrid buses in the European market. 

35

€ millions 


3.5 

3 

2.5 

2 

1.5 

1 

0.5 

0 

Bus Capital Costs: hystorical data and stakeholder perspective 

(€, millions) 

Historical data 

Industry's 

Projections 

Figure 15 Industry perception on cost evolution in time (as in Table 3.2) in comparison 

with the historical data reported in section 3.1. Exchange rate assumed (2010 - 2020): 

€1= $1.4. 

Figure 14 and Figure 15 suggest that a hybrid fuel cell bus cost below €700,000 is 

achievable. The more optimistic stakeholders see that this could be achieved before 

2015, provided there is sufficient volume of demand pre-2015, whilst the more cautious 

stakeholders (typically from mainstream bus OEMs) would see this point between 2015 

and 2020. 

This conclusion is also supported by the bottom-up analysis of the problem, which 

suggests rapid cost reduction may be available (see Figure 16, below). 

36


4.2 Bottom-Up Approach – breaking down the cost structure 

We identified 8 components in the fuel cell bus cost structure. Table 7, below, 

summarises the responses obtained from the stakeholders interviewed. 

Table 7 Fuel Cell Bus cost break-down in time and volume according to stakeholders‟ 

perspective (exchange rate assumed: €1 = $1.4) 

Components 

Chassis and 

Body 


System 

Indicative cost 2010 - 

2014 (2010 €) 

~ €140,000 - €215,000 / 

bus 

~ €3,000 – €6,000/kW 

Cost varies according to 

manufacturer and FC rated 

power. The cost range 

reflects market data for 

system over 70kW. 

Remarks: 

5 years or 10-15,000h 

warranty range 

Indicative cost 2015 and 

beyond (2010 €) 

~ €140,000 - €215,000 / 

bus 

Two philosophies exist, 

depending on automotive 

volumes. Please note that 

there is not a consensus 

within the industry on 

this issue yet. 

High Auto FC take-up: 

€140 - €360 / kW for more 

than 10,000 FC cars / year. 

The fuel cell system is 

assumed to be 

standardised for car 

applications, with 

max10,000 hours warranty 

Bus based markets 

≤ €860 – €1,000/ kW for 

≥ 100 - 500 buses / year 

and ~20,000 hours 

warranty 

Up to €2,150 / kW if the 

market fails to achieve 

volume (e.g.


FC Cooling 

System 

Energy 

Storage 

System 


Storage 

System 

Power 

Electronics 

and Electric 

Motors 

Labour for 

drivetrain 

integration 

OEM 

Investments 

costs 

~ €15,000/ bus ~ €15,000/ bus Costs are not expected to 

benefit from economy of 

scale effects. 

Battery: ~ €720 – 

€1,220/kWh for NiMH and 

Li-Ion technologies. Up to 

3 years warranty. 

Ultra Capacitors: 

~€110/kW. Up to 2 years 

warranty 

~ € 1,300 – €2,150/kg 

Remark: lower bound cost 

may not include additional 

items such as storage 

system insulation 

~ €72,000 – €180,000 / 

bus 

Remark: 

this cost includes DC/DC 

convertors and the electric 

motor/s 

~ €220 – €720 / kWh – the 

current FC bus trend is for 

longer life higher cost 

batteries at the top of this 

range 

~ €700 - €800/ kg 

~ €72,000 – €140,000 / bus 

by 2015 

~ €64,000 - €100,000/ bus ~ €36,000 - €50,000/ bus 

by 2015 

As low as €3,600 / bus 

beyond 2015 - 2018. 

Costs for storage capacity 

between 20kWh and 

100kWh. 

Electric light-vehicle 

industry target is approx. 

€200 /kWh by 2015/20. 10 

Cost for storage capacity 

more than 30 kg. 

Cost similarity with diesel 

hybrid buses. Limited 

scope for cost reduction in 

time – stakeholders 

suggest 10% potential 

improvement 

Assuming bus assembling 

and testing. Learning 

effects in time expected 

thanks to the improvement 

of the manufacturing 

process of hybrid diesel 

buses. 

This cost component includes a combination of factors added by bus OEMs in 

manufacturing the buses. It currently includes items such as risk premium, non-recurring 

engineering costs (if any), and additional labour costs required to manufacture a novel 

product (e.g. hand assemble the FC buses, etc.) 

Currently, these costs are estimated at up to 26% of the final bus cost. 

As these costs are driven by confidence and volume, their impact on bus cost is 

expected to substantially reduce over time. 

Data source: North American and European industry players. Exchange rate assumed: €1= $1.4 

The data reported in Table 7 present a wide range of values for almost all components. 

Clearly, stakeholder perception of component costs greatly varies according to their own 

10 See for example: Battery for Electric Cars, Challenges, Opportunities and the Outlook to 

2020, Boston Consulting Group, January 2010. 

38


experience. In practice, different bus architectures require different technical 

specifications for similar components. This may explain some of the variation in the 

projections. Otherwise the range is likely due to the maturity of the supply chain and lack 

of transparency on component pricing. 

Figure 16 and Figure 17, below, summarise the information collected in Table 7 and 

reproduce the bottom-up reconstruction of the cost of a 12m hybrid fuel cell bus in two 

hybrid configurations (powered by a 150kW and 75kW FC system). We consider three 

points in time: 

The fuel cell bus costs between today and 2014, are based on the range of 

component costs provided by stakeholders 

Estimated bus costs between 2015 and 2018, assuming there is little benefit in fuel 

cell prices from take up of automotive FC systems. This spread of prices in this path 

reflects the uncertainty around the scale of procurement of FC buses before 2015, 

with larger committed orders having the potential to drive costs to the lower bound 

by reducing the uncertainty for fuel cell supplier and the bus OEM. 

The bus cost in 2018 – 2022, reflecting the expected costs for a fuel cell system in a 

market where large demand of automotive fuel cell systems is driven by the car 

segment (> 10,000 fuel cell cars/year) or dedicated bus stacks have reduced in cost 

due to increased volumes (1,000‟s of buses per year). 

39


€ (Thousands) 

€ 1,800 

€ 1,650 

€ 1,500 

€ 1,350 

€ 1,200 

€ 1,050 

€ 900 

€ 750 

€ 600 

€ 450 

€ 300 

€ 150 

€ 0 

Hybridised Fuel Cell Buses: Cost Break-down 2010 - 2020 

Cost Range 2010 - 2014: 

Upper and lower bound 

Cost projections based on a set of 

assumptions – please refer to Table 8 

Cost Range 2015 - 2018 

Bus based market: 


Cost Range 2018 - 2022 

High FC car take-up: 


OEM Investment Costs 

Labour 

Power Electronics and Motors 

Hydrogen Storage System 

Energy Storage System 

FC Cooling System 

Fuel Cell System 

Chassis and Body 

Assumptions: 

FC System: 150 kW 

Energy Storage System: 50kWh 

Hydrogen Storage System: 40kg 

Figure 16 Break-down of the cost of a hybridised fuel cell bus in the time window 2010 – 

2020, according to the data reported in Table 7. It is modelled a 12m platform bus, 

powered by 150kW fuel cell system, a 50kWh battery system and with 40kg of on-board 

hydrogen storage. Buses cost is expressed at 2010 money value. 


€ 1,650 

€ 1,500 

€ 1,350 

€ 1,200 

€ 1,050 

€ 900 

€ 750 

€ 600 

€ 450 

€ 300 

€ 150 

€ 0 

Hybridised Fuel Cell Buses: Cost Break-down 2010 - 2020 

Cost Range 2010 - 2014: 


Cost projections based on a set of 


Cost Range 2015 - 2018 

Bus based market: 


Cost Range 2018 - 2022 

High FC car take-up: 


OEM Investment Costs 

Labour 



Energy Storage System 




Assumptions: 

FC System: 75 kW 

Energy Storage System: 50kWh 

Hydrogen Storage System: 30kg 

Figure 17 Break-down of the cost of a hybridised fuel cell bus in the time window 2010 – 

2020, according to the data reported in Table 7. The data is based on a 12m bus, 

powered by 75kW fuel cell system, a 50kWh battery system and with 30kg of on-board 

hydrogen storage. Buses cost is expressed at 2010 money value. 

40


Costs 2010 - 2014 

The bottom up approach was able to reproduce the cost range currently observed in the 

market, based on the data above. The main cost component is the capital cost of the 

fuel cell system itself. 

The second main component increasing the cost of the bus is the combination of factors 

added by bus OEMs in manufacturing the buses, which includes a risk premium, nonrecurring 

engineering and other costs and additional labour required to hand build the 

FC buses. 

These two factors represent the vast majority of the additional cost of today‟s FC buses 

and hence can be considered the two main barriers to an economically viable capital 

cost for FC buses. 

Costs from 2015 

Figure 16 and Figure 17 suggest whole bus costs lower than €700,000 as early as by 

2015/8 and not necessary in conjunction with a large demand of automotive FC 

systems. 

According to Figure 16 and Figure 17, the cost components with the greatest potential to 

reduce in time are the cost of fuel cell system itself, the OEM investment costs and the 

additional labour required to install a hybrid electric drivetrain and a fuel cell/H2 system. 

Stakeholders expect most of the extra costs currently priced by OEMs (such eventual 

risk premium, extra labour costs etc.) to fall as the market experiences standardisation 

of the hybrid manufacturing process and the consolidation of an early market for fuel cell 

buses. As volumes increase, these costs can be spread over more vehicles and there is 

scope to create efficiencies within the manufacturing process. In addition, as the product 

gains more exposure to the market, the risks associated with the product are reduced 

and with it the risk premiums for the product. 

Stakeholders‟ perception of fuel cell system cost evolution through time and through 

increases in volume is illustrated in Figure 18 below. The main FC manufacturing 

stakeholders identified learning and volume effects as different but interacting forces in 

driving FC costs through time. 

Breakthroughs in the durability of fuel cell systems are expected to greatly reduce costs 

in the next few years, thanks to reduced warranty costs. The warranty costs faced by the 

manufacturers (essentially the stack refurbishment costs) are fully internalised in the 

whole cost of the fuel cell system. This cost is currently a considerable part and may 

represent up to 40% of the whole cost of the fuel cell, according to stakeholder 

feedback. Improvements in the durability of fuel cells may therefore considerably lower 

the cost of the warranty even in absence of a large bus demand. This is summarised in 

Figure 18, below, in the time window 2010 – 2013. 

41


€ / kW 

€ 4,000 

€ 3,500 

€ 3,000 

€ 2,500 

€ 2,000 

€ 1,500 

€ 1,000 

€ 500 

Fuel Cell System cost in time - step-function-like representation 

Learning Effects 

(breakthrough in cell durability) 

Volume ~ low 100's buses 

(bulk procurements) 

Volume ~ low 1,000's buses 

and/or large automotive market 

(~ 10,000 cars/year) 

€ 0 

2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 

Figure 18 Fuel cell systems cost as a function of time and volume according to 

stakeholders‟ perspective (sales volume refers to the global market). The figure 

schematically plots the data reported in Table 3.3. The figures by 2015 assume 20,000 

hour warranties whilst the figures by 2020 assume that the fuel cell system is 

standardised for car applications (10,000 hours warranty). Figures for 2010 – 2014 apply 

for fuel cell systems bigger than 100kW only. Cost figures are expressed at 2010 

money value. 

In volume terms, the cost of a bus fuel cell system is expected to reduce to 

approximately €850 – 1,000/kW given a demand of a few hundreds of buses per year 

and for warranties up to 20,000 hours. This is summarised in Figure 18 in the 

intermediate time window between 2013 and 2017. 

Further cost reduction of the fuel cell system is ultimately envisaged, but this will require 

an automotive fuel cell market with a large demand of fuel cell cars (> 10,000 cars/year), 

reaching costs as low as €140 - €360/kW. These figures assume that fuel cell buses can 

be powered with a fuel cell system sharing highly standardised components with car fuel 

cell systems. Accordingly, the figures assume of warranty of roughly 10,000hours.This is 

summarised in Figure 18 in the time window beyond 2015. 

The cost of bus fuel cell system, however, is likely to reduce further beyond 2015 also 

independently to large automotive volume, due to an increasing optimization of the 

technology and standardisation of the manufacturing process. 

42


4.3 Outlook to 2030 

The bottom-up analysis of the hybrid fuel cell bus cost can be extended to 2030 in a 

similar fashion to that described above. However, it should be noted that in looking out 

to 2030, the cost of hybrid drivetrain components becomes much more challenging for 

stakeholders to predict. Figure 19, below, summarises the key results from this analysis. 

The capital cost of hydrogen buses is expected to reduce further by 2030 as some cost 

components such as extra labour and the risk premium costs are ultimately envisaged to 

disappear. 

Hybrid fuel cell buses, however, are not expected to reach today‟s capital cost level of 

diesel buses, as fundamentally the hybrid fuel cell architecture requires extra 

components on top of the basic diesel bus architecture. The cost for hybrid fuel cell 

buses in 2025-2030 can be also estimated by pricing these extra components according 

to 2020-2022‟s figures. 

Using these assumptions, fuel cell buses are expected to ultimately cost between 

€100,000 and €200,000 more than a basic diesel bus and approx. €50,000 - €100,000 

more than the cost level expected for diesel hybrid buses by 2030. 


Hybridised fuel cell buses: cost break-down outlook to 2030 

€ 400 

€ 300 

€ 200 

€ 100 

€ 0 

150kW 

hybridisation 

75kW 

hybridisation 

Hybrid fuel cell bus, 

outlook to 2030 

Diesel Bus 

(2030) 

Diesel hybrid Bus 

(2030) 

Diesel hydrod bus (projection) 

Basic diesel bus 



Energy Storage system 




Figure 19 Break-down of the cost of a hybridised fuel cell bus according to stakeholders‟ 

projections for ~ 2030. It is modelled on a hybrid fuel cell bus based on a 12m platform 

bus, powered by a 150kW or 75kW fuel cell system. The two hybridisations are 

compared to today‟s diesel bus cost level and the cost level expected for diesel hybrid 

buses by approx. 2015 - 2020. Buses cost is expressed at 2010 money value. 

43


It is worth noting that by 2030 the cost difference between different fuel cell bus 

hybridisation architectures is expected to depend more on the actual specifications of 

the electric drive-train than on the rated power output of the fuel cell system. 

For example, a 75kW-powered fuel cell bus by 2030 could be slightly more expensive 

than a 150kW-powered one as different energy storage requirements (battery capacity) 

or hybridization choices (battery, super-capacitors or a combination of both) may have 

more influence on the final bus cost than the cost of the fuel cell system itself. 

4.4 Capital cost dynamics summary 

The current cost of a fuel cell bus is over 5 times the cost of a basic diesel equivalent. 

This is too high for commercial traction and will prevent any market traction for the 

technology. 

There are two key factors which increase the cost of a fuel cell bus over a typical diesel 

hybrid bus: 

The fuel cell itself 

The various additional costs associated with assembling a fuel cell bus, such as 

additional labour, non-recurring engineering and a risk premium to cover the risks of 

selling a new technology. 

Both of these costs are predicted to reduce with time and volume of buses. This 

reduction could lead to a cost range for FC buses of approx. €450,000 – €900,000 

between 2015 - 2018, independently from sales volume in the passenger car segment. 

The lower bound of this range refers to 75kW fuel cell buses and will require a 

commitment to hundreds of vehicle orders before 2015. 

Further reductions are likely to derive from increases in the use of fuel cells in the 

passenger car segment. These could reduce the cost of a fuel cell bus well below 

€400,000 in the 2018 to 2022 time frame under best case assumptions. 

Ultimately, the capital cost of hybrid fuel cell buses is not expected to reach the cost of 

diesel buses due to the additional components required. Hybrid fuel cell buses are 

expected to cost approx. between €100,000 and €200,000 more than a basic diesel bus 

and approx. €50,000 - €100,000 more than the cost level expected for diesel hybrid 

buses by 2030. 

Figure 20, below, summarises in one graph the cost projections for the 2010 – 2030 

period analysed above. 

44


Millions € 

Hybrid fuel cell bus capital cost : 2010 - 2030 cost projection summary 

1.8 

1.6 

1.4 

1.2 

1 

0.8 

0.6 

0.4 

0.2 

0 

Averaged costs 

2010 - 2014 


2015 - 2018 

Costs projections based on a set of 



2018 - 2022 


~ 2030 

150kW FC bus (2010- 2014) 

75kW FC Bus (2010 - 2014) 



150kW FC Bus (2018 -2022) 

75kW FC Bus (2018-2022) 

150kW FC Bus (~ 2030) 

75kW FC Bus (~ 2030) 

Figure 20 Hybrid fuel cell cost over time as suggested by Figure 15, Figure 16 and 

Figure 19. Buses cost is expressed at 2010 money value. 

Our survey identified two competing views within the industry on how bus fuel cell 

systems might be affected by the evolution of the passenger car segment. These views 

can be summarised as it follows: 

Dedicated bus stack led: 

Fuel cell system manufacturers foresee that specialised systems for buses will 

continue to have a role, independent of the car segment. This option would imply 

more costly fuel cell systems but with extended warranty – e.g. up to 20,000 hours or 

more by 2015/20. 

Led by passenger car stack development: 

The alternative is to see fuel cell systems sharing highly standardised components 

with passenger car stacks. This option would imply cheap fuel cell systems but with 

reduced life (as passenger car lifetime requirements are lower than those for heavy 

duty buses). This view would favour cheap bus fuel cell systems to be frequently 

swapped. 

Remark: 

According to European bus operators, both philosophies are acceptable as long as they 

offer same economic benefit on a total cost of ownership (TCO) basis. 

Generally speaking, as bus operators are already used to frequently replacing bus 

components, there are no major logistical problems in dealing with less durable fuel cell 

systems, provided replacement rates do not exceed one stack swap per year. 

45


5 Hydrogen Fuelling and Infrastructure 

General hydrogen infrastructure issues are analysed elsewhere within the NextHyLights 

project (work package number 5). This chapter deals with the specific infrastructure 

issues as they relate to hydrogen supply for buses. 

Two of the main differences between hydrogen bus fuelling facilities and those for 

passenger cars can be summarised as it follows: 

Scale of hydrogen demand – a refuelling facility supporting 20 passenger cars with a 

typical usage profile might expect to fuel only 10-30kg of hydrogen per day. 20 

hydrogen buses would require between 400kg and 600kg of hydrogen each day, 

depending on their route. A full hydrogen bus depot with over 200 buses could 

require over 4 tonnes of hydrogen each day. This is larger than any of the fuelling 

facilities which have been considered for passenger cars and will require new station 

designs. Initial design concepts for larger scale fuelling (e.g. over 2,500kg/day) are 

already required, to allow bus operators to plan for larger hydrogen fleets in depots 

of the future (even though these fleets are unlikely to be operational until well after 

2015). 

Pressure – all existing hydrogen buses use compressed gaseous hydrogen at 

350bar, as opposed to the 700bar standard for passenger cars in Europe. The cost 

of filling stations is considerably lower at 350 bar compared to 700bar and 350bar 

filling is therefore emerging as the standard pressure for bus fuelling for the 

foreseeable future. 

Some manufacturers have considered 700bar designs to improve range (most 

notably for shifting bus refuelling from once a day to every two days) and also for 

more space-challenged storage situations on-board buses (double decker buses, 

articulated buses). So far these have not been required by the market, but as the 

passenger car sector develops solutions around 700 bar, a case may emerge for 

new designs based on 700bar. This situation will need to be reviewed periodically. 

Apart from the main differences discussed above, the refuelling stations for car and bus 

applications clearly share similar issues on technology readiness and economics. 

Generally speaking, the priorities for hydrogen refuelling station development are: 

a) To achieve standardisation and modularisation of hydrogen components across 

different suppliers and 

b) Develop sound safety records from an increasing number of refuelling stations in 

service. 

46


c) From this, develop more straightforward codes and standardisation procedures to 

streamline the permitting process for hydrogen fuelling facilities. 

Standardisation of refuelling station designs would bring benefits in term of reduced 

capital and maintenance costs. More precisely, such a process would reduce the 

number of bespoke components (which are typically expensive and costly to replace in 

case of breakdowns), ease personnel training and offer economy of scale benefits in 

case of large sales volume. 

The capital cost of refuelling stations is expected to decrease over time thanks to sales 

volume effects, with limited improvements expected from technology breakthroughs. 

Most of the components of a hydrogen refuelling station are well known in the industrial 

gas market but often require very specialised hand-built components due to the lack of a 

large demand for hydrogen filling stations. 

Nevertheless, improvement in selected components – most notably on hydrogen 

compression technologies and on site electrolysers, where used, could bring further cost 

reductions. 

The development of sound safety records is key for ensuring quicker approval process 

and, hence, reducing risk and overhead costs for investors. Although the existing 

hydrogen refuelling stations have demonstrated an excellent safety performance, 

hydrogen refuelling projects are often subjected to regulation and safety standards far 

more stringent than any other transport fuel due to the lack of extensive safety records. 

As a consequence, the fulfilment of local regulations, liabilities and safety distances 

currently leads to a lengthy and cost intensive process which can take, in some cases 

more than one year to be completed. 

47


5.1 Comments on the status of hydrogen refuelling stations for bus 

applications 

In annexe B we analyse the status of hydrogen refuelling station technology for bus 

applications through four case studies of hydrogen fuelling stations deployed for large 

bus fleets. 

Each case study provides information on the project and, where possible, evaluates the 

hydrogen cost at the pump. 

In this subsection we comment the status of the hydrogen refuelling technology for bus 

applications according to a) the case four case studies analysed in the annexe B and b) 

the consultation of key hydrogen infrastructure industry players. 

5.1.1 Hydrogen fuel cost 

Figure 21, below, summarises the hydrogen cost at the pump as suggested by the four 

case studies (annex B). The hydrogen costs reflect different dispensing capacities and 

financial assumptions (such as the hydrogen and electricity purchase price) and include 

refuelling stations‟ capital and maintenance costs. For the purpose of comparison, the 

figure includes taxed and untaxed diesel retail prices in the USA and in Europe 

expressed in Euro per kg of hydrogen-equivalent (calorific content), plus selected 

international targets by 2015. 

It should be noted that the DoE, Canada and JTI targets include production and 

distribution costs only, and hence do not include refuelling stations‟ capital and 

maintenance costs and taxation. 

48


€ / kg 

18.0 

16.0 

14.0 

12.0 

10.0 

8.0 

6.0 

4.0 

2.0 

0.0 

Untaxed hydrogen cost at the pump, 

including refueling station capital and maintenance costs 

2010 price range 2015 targets 

Hamburg case study (50% on-site production from electrolysis) 

Cologne case study (Trucked-in gaseous, 100 - 300kg/day) 

Cologne case study (Piped-in gaseous, 100 - 300kg/day) 

London case study (Trucked-in liquid, H2 purchase price: €3- 6/kg) 

JTI targer (2015) 

HBA target (2015) 

DOE target (2015) 

Canada target (2015) 

US taxed diesel 2010 

US untaxed diesel 2010 

EU taxed diesel 2010 

EU untaxed diesel 2010 

Figure 21 Untaxed hydrogen cost at the pump as suggested by the four case studies 

analysed in the previous sections, in comparison with some international targets. The 

figure also displays taxed and untaxed retail prices of diesel in the USA and Europe 

(average of 26 state members). All costs are expressed in Euro per kg of Hydrogen 

equivalent. Assumptions: 1 kg of H2 = 0.882 diesel gallons = 3.33 diesel litres; exchange 

rate: €1 (2010 - 2015) = $1.4 (2010). Diesel prices reflect average data as in May 2010. 

Sources: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/gdu/gasdiesel.asp , http://www.energy.eu/ . 

Figure 21 shows that the hydrogen prices suggested by the case studies analysed are 

generally higher than the taxed diesel prices in both the American and European market. 

The same analysis, however, suggests that cost parity with the taxed diesel price in the 

European market can be reached using today‟s refuelling station designs. Continuing 

the price analysis on the equipment installed in the case study filling stations to consider 

higher hydrogen demands, it becomes apparent that even using today‟s equipment it is 

possible to achieve cost parity with taxed diesel. This occurs with demands over 400- 

500kgH2/day in the case of Cologne and over 800kgH2/day for London. 

49


€ / kg-H2 

€ 9 

€ 8 

€ 7 

€ 6 

€ 5 

€ 4 

€ 3 

€ 2 

€ 1 

€ 0 

Hydrogen fuel cost at the pump versus dispensing volume 

(10 year contract, delivered liquid hydrogen) 

Average EU taxed and untaxed 

diesel fuel price (~ € 1.15 and 

€ 0.58/ litre) 

Refueling Station capital cost: € 3million Refueling Station capital cost: € 1.5million 

300 kg/day 

500kg/day 

1,000kg/day 

1,500 kg/day 

Assumptions: 

Discount Rate: 3.5% 

Hydrogen Fuel Purchase Price: €3 - €4 / kg 

Annual Maintenance Fee: € 117,000 

Figure 22 Demand volume and contract length effects on the untaxed hydrogen cost at 

pump for delivered liquid hydrogen. The model considers key parameters such as the 

total capital cost of hydrogen refuelling station, maintenance fee, different dispensing 

volumes and contract durations with hydrogen suppliers 

Among the different production options, on-site electrolysis currently offers the highest 

price at the pump -three times higher than the taxed diesel price in the European market 

even at ultra-low electricity prices. 

These results are consistent with the expectation of major European fuel retailers and 

gas companies, who foresee substantial cost reduction in the hydrogen retail price 

thanks to a) larger hydrogen throughputs b) increasing refuelling station sales volume 

and c) design standardisation (hence simplification). 

These results are encouraging and suggest that hydrogen costs at the pump will be 

considerably reduced in large demonstration projects. A reduction of the hydrogen cost 

to a level comparable with the calorific equivalent cost of taxed diesel fuel in the EU (< 

€5 per kg of hydrogen-equivalent) seems achievable even with today‟s equipment, 

especially assuming a throughput higher than 1,000 kgH2 per day and refuelling station 

capital costs lower than €3 million. 

5.1.2 Refuelling Station Performance 

Table 2, below, summarises the current techno-economic performance of the refuelling 

stations described in the four case studies discussed above. 

50


Table 8 Refuelling performances according to the case studies in case studies in section 

6.2.3, 6.2.4, 6.2.5, 6.2.6 

Refuelling station cost 

Refuelling time 

Footprint 

Dispensing capacity 

On-site hydrogen storage 

capacity 

Item Performances 

€1,300,000 - €7,500,000 

(Figures include overheads cost; data range reflects dispensing 

capacity and hydrogen production method) 

7 - 10 minutes/bus – no precooling 

(Figures reflect bus refuelling at 350bar; on-board bus hydrogen 

storage capacity approx. 30 – 40kg; the 10 minutes figure refers to the 

refuelling of up to eighteen buses in sequence) 

200 – 700 m 2 

(Data range reflects different dispensing capacities and hydrogen 

production methods) 

100 – 1,000 kg of hydrogen per day 

100 – 10,000 kg 

Perhaps the three key issues today are the capital cost, refuelling time and footprint of 

the refuelling stations. Each of issue is tackled in turn below. 

Refuelling station cost 

The four case studies analysed above suggest a refuelling station cost of €1,300,000 - 

€7,500,000. These figures, which include overhead costs such as permitting and 

planning costs, reflect different dispensing capacities and hydrogen production methods. 

It is, however, possible to combine these figures with data provided by other European 

stakeholders to calculate the relationship between the refuelling station capital costs and 

dispensing capacities at the current status of the technology. Figure 23, below, 

summarises this result. 

51


Euro per unit of dispensing capacity (€ / kg-day) 

14,000 

12,000 

10,000 

8,000 

6,000 

4,000 

2,000 

0 

Refueling station cost as a function of its 

dispensing capacity 

0 500 1000 1500 2000 

Capacity (kg-H2/day) 

Refueling station cost as a 

function of its dispensing 

capacity 

Figure 23 Cost of a hydrogen refuelling station as a function of its dispensing capacity. 

The data points reflect either historical data or stakeholders‟ projections. The costs are 

provided per unit of dispensing capacity (€ per kg-day) and include overheads (40% of 

the cost). Figures are in 2010‟s money value. 

Figure 23 suggests that the cost of a refuelling station reduces considerably (per kg 

hydrogen dispensed) as the dispensing capacity increases, especially where hydrogen 

is not produced on-site. 

These costs are expected to reduce further over time. European fuel retailing firms, for 

example, foresee 4% decrease in the hydrogen refuelling station capital cost between 

2010 and 2030, due to increasing sales volume and design standardisation effects. 


The refuelling time experienced by fuel cell bus operators ranges between 7 and 10 

minutes per bus, assuming 30 - 40kg of on-board hydrogen storage at 350bar. Typical 

refuelling times for diesel buses are less than 5 minutes (closer to three minutes per 

bus). 

The longer fill times for hydrogen buses risks becoming an unacceptable level of 

inconvenience for transit operators when dealing with fleets of over 100 buses. These 

operators typically refuel all buses in a depot in a short overnight window of between 4 

and 6 hours. Any increase in fill times per bus will cause problems with this window. 

52



logistical (e.g. installing additional dispensers at depots to allow simultaneous fuelling of 

buses), practical (e.g. altering route patterns to allow fuelling during the day) or technical 

(e.g. pre-cooling hydrogen to allow faster fuelling or operating 700 bar tanks to allow 

fuelling only every two days). 

It is recommended that these types of solutions are explored in the near term projects 

for hydrogen bus demonstration such as the CHIC project. 

Remark: 

Interested bus operators have signalled that refuelling times over 5 minutes per bus may 

be satisfactory for the majority of bus operators if in-depot cleaning of the buses is 

allowed during refuelling. 

Existing standard procedures for diesel buses include buses refuelling during their 

cleaning, which typically require about 5 to 6 minutes. 

Footprint 

The four case studies analysed above demonstrated that the footprint for a filling station 

depend on the hydrogen production and storage technology. 

Among the different options, designs based on delivered hydrogen tend to have smaller 

footprints, as the refuelling stations can benefit from less on-site production and 

compression equipment and lower backup storage volumes. Liquid hydrogen 

technology, in particular, allows extremely low footprints. The refuelling station in 

Whistler, for example, has a footprint of less than 700m 2 even if it is the largest ever 

constructed by dispensing capacity (1 tonne per day). 

By contrast, solutions based on on-site hydrogen production generally have larger 

footprints, mainly due to the need to store low-pressure hydrogen on-site for buffering 

and backing upon-site production and ensuring high hydrogen availability. 

Among the on-site hydrogen production options, steam methane reforming (SMR) is 

perhaps the most space-demanding. SMR technology requires stable output profiles to 

run at maximum efficiency and to avoid catalyst degradation (which is very sensitive to 

thermal cycling). This requirement for stability of output leads to high demand for on-site 

storage to meet unsteady demands. 

53


5.2 CO2 emissions 

Table 9, below, summarises the range of CO2 emissions per kilometre for hybrid fuel cell 

buses compared with diesel and diesel hybrid buses. There is a very wide range for fuel 

cell hybrids, reflecting the wide range in CO2 emissions for different hydrogen production 

pathways. At the ultra-low CO2 end (production from renewable, nuclear or fossils fuels 

with CCS) the CO2 emissions are over 90% lower than a conventional diesel bus. 

At today‟s state of the art for hydrogen production from methane (approx. 10kgCO2/kg of 

H2), there is still a CO2 advantage over both diesel and diesel hybrid buses at the 

highest fuel economy for fuel cell buses (N.B.: next generation of FC buses are 

expected to achieve a fuel economy up to 40% better than diesel buses over an 

equivalent route at parity of calorific content). As the fuel economy drops from this point, 

or less efficient methane based reformation pathways are used, the CO2 emissions tend 

towards that of a conventional diesel bus and can even increase above those for hybrid 

diesel buses. 

This suggests that any medium term strategy for hydrogen bus rollout should target a 

CO2 content below 10kgCO2/kg of hydrogen and best in class fuel economy, to ensure 

that the deployment leads to real CO2 savings. 

Table 9: CO2 emissions per km travelled – comparison between selected bus 

technologies. The figures on the CO2 content of the hydrogen fuel reflect different 

production paths. 

Hybrid Fuel Cell 


Hybrid Diesel 



(nominal range, 

current values) 

Fuel CO2 content Kg CO2 per km travelled 

8 – 15kg/100km 0* – 0.36 kg-CO2/kWh 

(0* – 12 kg-CO2/kg-H2) 

0* – 1.8 

23 – 40 litres/100km 0.3 kg-CO2/kWh 

(3kg-CO2/litre) 

Diesel Buses 35 – 50 litres/100 km 0.3 kg-CO2/kWh 

(3kg-CO2/litre) 

Trolley Buses ~ 180-200kWh/100km depend on grid content 

(Average EU-27: 0.6kg/kWh) 

0.69 – 1.2 

1.05 – 1.5 

0* - 1.12 (assuming 

average EU-27 grid)** 

Source: Stakeholder consultation. 

* For renewable hydrogen and electricity the CO2 content is assumed equal to zero. 

** The average CO2 grid content in EU-27 was ~ 0.6 kg/kWh for thermal generation in 2005 (Source: 

Eurostat) 

54


6 Comparison with Alternative Technologies 

This section compares the techno-economic performance of 12m platform hybrid fuel 

cell buses with alternative technologies. We consider the main five bus technology 

alternatives to fuel cell buses: 

Diesel buses (currently up to 90% of the European urban bus fleet 11 ) 

Hybrid-electric diesel (Hybrid diesel) 

Compressed Natural Gas buses (CNG) 

Battery-electric buses 

Trolley buses 

Table 10, below, provides a detailed comparison between battery, hybrid fuel cell, hybrid 

diesel and trolley buses. A colour code eases the interpretation of the comparison of the 

technologies‟ performance with the operating benchmark, which are basic diesel buses. 

A green label means better performance in comparison with the benchmark, whilst a red 

label means worse / unacceptable performance. The intermediate colours represent 

intermediate performance. 

The table immediately illustrates the attractiveness of diesel hybrid relative to diesel 

buses. Diesel hybrid buses offer genuine fuel economy gains and hence CO2 saving and 

air quality improvements, at a capital cost closer to the conventional diesel bus (up to 

50% more expensive). Furthermore, the fuel costs and infrastructure issues are the 

same and the availability is becoming comparable with a conventional diesel bus. For 

this reason, numerous European bus operators are increasing uptake of hybrid bus 

technology. 

Fuel cell hybrid buses by contrast can offer compelling environmental benefits, even 

compared to diesel hybrids, but suffer from: 

o High capital costs (see section 5) 

o Higher maintenance costs – which will reduce with fuel cell costs 

o Higher fuel costs (see section 6) 

o A lack of hydrogen infrastructure (section 6) 

o Longer fill times (section 4) 

11 Source: International Association of Public Transport (UITP), http://www.uitp.org/ 

55


Each of these problems will need to be overcome if fuel cell buses are to occupy the 

„environmental bus technology‟ space currently occupied by diesel hybrid buses. 

Electric buses have a number of apparently fundamental limitations which will prevent 

their widespread adoption. In particular: 

The slow recharging time for the buses 

The high power demand for charging- which will increase the cost of charging 

infrastructure at bus depots 

The high weight of the batteries 

Limited range – below that required for a typical cycle 

These limitations would rule out a fully autonomous battery powered bus, providing, for 

example, an 18 hour route. There are however new options being developed which 

could include more limited battery capacity (or super capacitors) with fast charging at 

bus stops or layover areas (Figure 24, below). These could include inductive charging or 

small plug-in stations for short bursts of charge. Such technologies have still to be 

extensively tested in commercial applications and hence it is not possible to perform a 

comparison with fuel cell buses at present. 

Figure 24 Examples of an ultra-fast charging station for ultra-capacitor-powered buses 

(left) and a fast charging stations for battery-powered buses (right). Ultra-fast charging 

points recharge the buses in few seconds at each bus stop, whilst fast charging points 

recharge the buses at the route end only. Sources: http://ceramics.org ; 

http://www.proterraonline.com. 

Finally, it is possible to remove the batteries all together and move to a trolley bus 

architecture. Trolley bus systems offer a highly reliable zero emission solution. However, 

the drawback is the high cost of the overhead cabling infrastructure (approx. €400,000 - 

€1,000,000 per kilometre including substations) and the fact that the trolley bus will be 

fixed to particular routes limiting operational flexibility. The trolley bus architecture is 

therefore mainly deployed on short, heavily used inner city routes. 

56


Table 10 Comparison between bus technologies. Colours legend: red = worst performance in comparison with 

benchmark (diesel buses); yellow = slightly worst performance; light green: slightly improved performance; 

green = better performance. A white box means absence of data or similar performance. 

12m bus 

platform 

Operating 

benchmark 

Capital Cost Basic diesel bus: 

Approx. 

€170,000 - €300,000 

Observed Fuel Economy 

figures 

(in urban route). Please 

note that fuel economy 

figures depend on 

driving cycle 

Diesel bus: 

0.35 - 0.5litre/km 

(~ 3.5 – 5kWh/km) 

Fuel Cost ~ €0.35 – 0.5/km 

(assuming a taxed diesel 

fuel cost of €1/litre) 

Range ≥ 500 km 

(for urban service) 

In-Tank Energy Capacity 

to Weight ratio (Energy 

Storage System plus 

Engine) 

Bus Availability ~ 90% 

~ 3.5 kWh/kg (assuming 

280kg of diesel on board 

and a 200kW engine) 

Refuelling time ≤ 0.1 seconds/kWh 

Pollution from Exhausts CO, NOx, SOx, PMs 

CO2 emissions 1.15 – 1.6 kg-CO2/km 

(diesel fuel carbon 

content: 2.3kg/litre) 

Propulsion system 

durability 

Diesel engines have a 

life of approx. 7 years in 

heavy duty applications 

Approx. 

≥ €1 million 

Battery Hybrid Fuel Cell Hybrid Diesel Trolley 

Approx. 

€1.2 - €1.8 million 

NA (under testing) Up to 40% improvement 

over an equivalent diesel 

route at parity of calorific 

content 

NA (under testing – it 

depends on actual fuel 

economy) 

~ €0.32 – 0.9/km (assuming a 

hydrogen fuel cost ~ €4- 

6/kg) 

Approx. 

€350,000 (serial) 

€500,000 (first-of-a-kind 

models) 

Up to 25% - 30% 

improvement over an 

equivalent diesel route 

~ €0.23 – 0.4/km 

(assuming a taxed diesel 

fuel cost of €1/litre) 

< 100km Up to 500km Equal to diesel buses -- 

~ 0.08 – 0.12kWh/kg ~ 1 kWh/kg (assuming 35kg 

of H2 on board and a 150kW 

FC system) 

NA (under testing) 55% - 80% (diesel 

equivalence expected for 

next generation buses) 

Up to 

15 seconds/kWh (using 

industrial conductive 

recharging points) 

≤ 0.45 seconds/kWh 

(assuming 40kg of H2 on 

board at 350bar) 

Similar to diesel buses -- 

57 

Approx. 

€500,000 - 600,000 

(cost figures for western 

European markets) 

Up to 50% improvement 

over an equivalent 

diesel route 

~ €0.18 /km + 20% 

(assuming a taxed 

electricity cost of 

€0.1/kWh) 

Similar to diesel buses Similar to diesel buses 

Equal to diesel buses -- 

Absent Water vapour only CO, NOx, SOx, PMs 

(up to 30% reduction 

over benchmark) 

Depends on the electricity 

carbon content. Up to 

100% reduction over 

benchmark (e.g. 

renewable electricity) 

NA (under testing) The 

battery system for heavy 

duty application, however, 

has a typical warranty of 2 

-3 years. 

Infrastructures -- Need of recharging 

infrastructures (at bus 

depots or along the bus 

route) 

Depends on the hydrogen 

carbon content. Up to 100% 

reduction over benchmark 

(e.g. renewable hydrogen) 

The fuel cell systems for 

heavy duty application have 

a typical warranty of 10,000 

– 15,000hours (or 5 years). 

Battery: 2 -3 year warranty. 

Need of hydrogen refuelling 

infrastructures (at bus 

depots) and delivery 

networks 

Up to 30% reduction 

over benchmark 

Extra maintenance 

required by the hybridelectric 

drivetrain. 

Battery: up to 5 years 

warranty. 

Absent 

Depends on the 

electricity carbon 

content. Up to 100% 

reduction over 

benchmark (e.g. 

renewable electricity) 

-- Need of overhead 

contact wire networks 

throughout all bus route 

--


Battery 

Hybrid Fuel 

Cell 

Hybrid Diesel 

Trolley 

Table 11 - Conclusions 

In order to be accepted as an alternative solution to diesel buses, battery buses 

have to: 

Increase battery energy density (at least by 5 or 10 times) 

Reduce weight 

Achieve far better recharging times (by 10 times) 

These targets are unlikely to be achieved in the next 10 years, according to the 

most up-to-date studies of sector 12 . For example, the maximum energy density 

ever achievable by battery is capped to 0.2kWh/kg by engineering constraints. 

In addition, it is worth noting that large automotive battery packs have still to 

prove outstanding safety records and that another challenge of the technology 

is its high capital costs. 

Hybrid fuel cell buses are closer to satisfying the transit agencies needs than 

battery buses. The technology requires very little change in the behavioural 

requirements of transit operators. In particular the technology offers similar 

performance to existing diesel fleet in terms of safety, range and refuelling 

time. 

The absence of commercial hydrogen infrastructure need not be a showstopper 

to the deployment of fuel cell buses, since refuelling facilities are 

typically purchased by transit operators as part of the decision to make a fuel 

cell bus deployment. 

The technology, however, must achieve: 

Substantially lower capital costs 

A higher availability in hybrid mode 

Lower fuel cost 

Improved fuelling logistics 

Hybrid diesel buses are currently the lowest cost environmental alternative to 

diesel buses, proving lower environmental impacts and similar economic 

performance (on TCO basis). 

The technology, however, does not offer a zero emission option. 

There are still improvements to be made in the cost of diesel hybrid drivetrains. 

Trolley buses are able to provide a low-zero carbon transportation. Due to the 

high cost of the overhead contact wire network (approx. €500,000 – 1,000,000 

per kilometre, including substations), this technology is currently deployed only 

in short inner city routes. 

12 See for example: Battery for Electric Cars, Challenges, Opportunities and the Outlook to 2020, 

Boston Consulting Group, January 2010. 

58


6.1 Total Cost of Ownership 

So far we have compared the technical performance of hybrid fuel cell buses with 

alternative technologies. In practice, however, transit operators compare different 

options through Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) models. We developed a TCO model for 

hybrid fuel cell buses and for three of the alternative technologies discussed above: 

diesel, Hybrid diesel and Trolley buses. Battery buses have not been considered due to 

lack of data on the actual cost of recharging facilities. 

The TCO model considers 9 elements: 

Bus financing and depreciation 

Overhead Contact Wire Network financing (for trolley buses) 

Fuel cost 

Taxes on Fuel 

Propulsion related replacement costs 13 

Bus maintenance fee 14 

Extra maintenance facility costs 15 

Overhead Contact Wire Network maintenance (for trolley buses) 

CO2 price (e.g. existence of a carbon pricing system in the transport sector) 

The output of the model is a yearly cost per km travelled per bus (e.g. € / km / bus). We 

consider for all the bus technologies a discount period of 12 years, a discount rate of 

3.5% 16 and an annual mileage of 70,000km (which is representative of a heavy use 

urban transit route). 

The fuel cost has been modelled using capital and maintenance cost assumptions from 

equipment providers, and hence is scalable with the hydrogen demand at the bus depot 

(larger depots use more fuel and hence reduce the effect of capital and maintenance 

costs). The input data for the TCO analysis are based on the information collected from 

interviewees as well as bus operators in the Hydrogen Bus Alliance members. The 

13 The propulsion replacement cost for fuel cell buses is the cost for refurbishing the fuel cell 

unit at the end of its life (assumed to be at the end of the warranty). We assume this cost is 65% 

of the cost of an equivalent new unit between 2010 and 2015 and 40% of it by 2020 (cost 

reduction is foreseen to come from improved stacks’ manufacturing processes). 

14 The maintenance fee for hybrid fuel cell, hybrid diesel and trolley buses includes the 

maintenance cost of the hybrid-electric / electric drivetrain. 

15 Because hydrogen is generally treated as a hazardous chemical in most of the European 

regulations and standards, maintenance facilities for hydrogen-fuelled bus must be adapted (or 

constructed) in order to meet all the safety criteria. 

16 We assume that investors (e.g. bus operators) can access public funds or financial schemes 

and hence benefit from low discount rates for financing bus projects. 3.5% is a typical figure 

within the European Union. 

59


capital cost of the fuel cell bus is taken from the bottom-up analysis performed in Section 

5. 

Figure 25, Figure 26 and Figure 27 summarise graphically the results of our TCO model 

in three time windows: 

at current costs of the technology 

at the average cost projected by 2015, assuming take up of FC buses in the 

hundred‟s leading up to 2015 - this reflects the long dedicated FC bus 

development pathway 

At the 2015-2020 level, where automotive volumes are assumed to drive down 

fuel cell system costs. This represents the passenger car dependent pathway. 

Each analysis is considered in turn. 

6.1.1 TCO at 2010 - 2014 costs 

The first TCO graph, Figure 25, below, clearly illustrates that fuel cell buses are some 

way from being commercially viable for bus operators. Even under best case 

assumptions, the cost of ownership of a FC bus is over three times that of a basic diesel 

bus. 

The main factors affecting the cost are the high capital cost, which increases the bus 

financing cost, and the cost of replacing components. The component replacement cost 

is due to the limited warranty available for fuel cell systems in today‟s buses. With a 

warranty of only 12,000 hours and a yearly service of over 5,000 hours, it is necessary 

to replace this high cost component every 2.5 years. This is prohibitively expensive. This 

problem could be mitigated by operating on less arduous routes, but the main issue is a 

need to reduce the fuel cell system replacement cost and increase the lifetime of the 

system itself. 

The graph also illustrates the competition between today‟s incumbent technologies. The 

diesel hybrid is close in TCO terms to the diesel bus but is not yet a genuinely 

competitive alternative. Despite this, the technology is seeing considerable traction in 

the market, which suggests there is a genuine commercial driver for environmentally 

benign technologies. 

Trolley buses show a higher cost of ownership under the route assumptions made here 

(7km length, 30-50 buses) due to the cost of overhead infrastructure and to high 

maintenance fee. The capital cost figures reflect the cost range in the western European 

market. 

60


Euro / km / bus 

€ 6.00 

€ 5.00 

€ 4.00 

€ 3.00 

€ 2.00 

€ 1.00 

€ 0.00 

Total Cost Of Ownership (12 years life, 12m platform bus): 

comparisons at 2010 - 2014 costs 

Upper 

Bound 

Lower 

Bound 

Upper 

Bound 

Lower 

Bound 

Upper 

Bound 

Lower 

Bound 

Upper 

Bound 

Hybrid Fuel Cell Hybrid Diesel Diesel Trolley 

Lower 

Bound 

Taxes on fuel 

CO2 price 

Overhead contact wire network - 

maintenance 



Propulsion-related Replacement 

cost 

Untaxed Fuel Cost 


Financing 


Principal Assumptions: 

Hybrid Fuel Cell bus 

Fuel cell bus capital cost: 1,000,000 - 1,600,000 Euro 

Fuel cell bus maintenance fee: 20,000 - 30,000 Euro /year 

Fuel cell system cost: 2,800 - 3,500 Euro/kW 

Fuel cell system specs: 150kW; 12,000 hours warranty 

Fuel economy: 8.5 - 11 kg-H2/100km 

Hydrogen refueling station throughput: 500 - 1,000 kg-H2/day 

Hydrogen refueling station maintenance fee: 100,000 - 120,000 / year 

Hydrogen cost at the pump: 4 - 8 Euro/kg 

Hybrid Diesel bus 

Bus capital cost: 350,000 (series) - 500,000 Euro (first-of-kind models) 

Bus maintenance fee: 16,000 - 20,000 Euro /year 

Fuel Economy: 28 - 36 liters / 100km 

Diesel price: 1.15 Euro / liter (taxed), 0.58 Euro / liter (untaxed) 

Diesel bus 

Bus capital cost: 170,000 - 250,000 Euro 


Fuel Economy: 36 - 44 liters/ 100km 


Trolley bus 


Bus maintenance fee : 30,000 - 50,000 Euro /year 

Overhead wire network cost: 500,000 - 1,000,000 Euro / km 

Overhead wire network maintenance fee: 3,000 - 30,000 Euro/km/year 

Overhead wire network life: 20 years 

Fuel Economy: 187kWh/ 100km 

Electricity Price: 0.1 Euro / kWh (taxed), 0.085 Euro / KWh (untaxed) 

Service route: 7km lenght / 30 - 50 buses in service 

Common Financial Inputs 

Discount Period : 12 years 

Discount Rate: 3.5% 

Annual Mileage: 70,000km (5,000 hours) 

CO2 price: 30 - 60 Euro/tonne 

Figure 25 TCO comparisons for 2010 - 2014 costs of the technologies. The hybrid fuel cell bus capital cost is evaluated through 

the bottom-up approach proposed in Table 7 and displayed by Figure 16. The maintenance fee for hybrid fuel cell and hybrid 

diesel bus includes the maintenance of the hybrid-electric drivetrain. Figures refer to 150kW hybridisations. 

61


6.1.2 Total Cost of Ownership in 2015 - 2018 

The next graph (Figure 26, below) shows the TCO for the 2015 – 2018 period, by which 

time next generation of fuel cell systems will have reduced FC costs considerably. A 

limited deployment of FC buses before this period is assumed to have increased the 

confidence and experience of the bus manufacturers, reducing the premiums for 

additional labour and general project risk. 

The graph illustrates that under lower bound assumptions, the fuel cell bus cost is 

approaching the upper bound of costs for diesel hybrid and diesel bus operations. The 

lower range of the TCO is well within the range of ownership costs for a trolley bus 

system. 

The TCO analysis shows that the FC bus can offer lower overall fuel costs, at the 

current taxed cost of diesel, due to higher FC bus efficiencies (note that this assumes no 

tax on hydrogen fuel, the sensitivity to which is explored later). The upper bound by 

contrast is well outside these ranges, suggesting an ownership cost approx. twice that of 

diesel bus alternatives (such as diesel hybrid and trolley buses). 

The main difference between the upper and lower bound is the assumptions on the cost 

of the FC bus and associated fuel cells. In the lower bound the FC cost is €850/kW and 

the bus has a cost of €500,000. This is a very optimistic target and will only be achieved 

with a considerable deployment commitment to FC bus technology prior to 2015. FC 

manufacturers suggest that volume orders of hundreds of buses would be required to 

unlock savings towards this level by 2015 17 . 

The upper bound suggests a FC bus cost of approx. €950,000 which is achievable even 

for small orders in 2013, and hence is a very conservative upper bound. Hence there is 

good confidence that the TCO for FC buses will lie in the range suggested by 2015. 

We can conclude that by 2015 - 2018 FC buses are unlikely to offer a commercially 

attractive alternative to diesel and diesel hybrid buses (even with a taxation benefit for 

hydrogen fuel). The technology will require additional subsidy beyond 2015 if significant 

volumes are to come forward in conventional urban bus routes. It is, however, likely that 

the TCO will have improved considerably from today‟s state of the art, to the point where 

the TCO lies between 1.5 and 2 times the cost of operating a typical diesel hybrid bus. 

When competing on environmentally sensitive routes where a trolley bus would 

otherwise be deployed, fuel cell buses at the lower bound of costs could achieve 

ownership cost parity. This is particularly true for long sub-urban routes where the high 

cost of the overhead cable networks will be prohibitive. 

17 Note that stack manufacturers would not provide stacks at these prices during this volume 

order phase pre-2015, rather the volume orders would unlock the potential to offer FC’s at this 

price from 2015 onwards. 

62


Euro / km /bus 

€ 3.50 

€ 3.00 

€ 2.50 

€ 2.00 

€ 1.50 

€ 1.00 

€ 0.50 

€ 0.00 

Total Cost Of Ownership (12 years life, 12m platform): 

comparisons at 2015- 2018 costs (bus based market) 

Upper 

Bound 

Lower 

Bound 

Upper 

Bound 

Lower 

Bound 

Upper 

Bound 

Lower 

Bound 

Upper 

Bound 


Lower 

Bound 

Taxes on fuel 

CO2 price 


maintenance 



Propulsion-related Replacement 

cost 



Financing 




Fuel cell bus capital cost: 520,000 - 970,000 Euro 

Fuel cell bus maintenance fee: 20,000 Euro /year 

Fuel cell system cost: 850 - 2,100 Euro/kW 

Fuel cell system specs: 150kW; 20,000 hours warranty 

Fuel economy: 8 - 10 kg-H2/100km 







Fuel economy: 28 - 36 liters / 100km 


Diesel bus 





Trolley bus 










Discount period : 12 years 

Discount rate: 3.5% 

Annual mileage: 70,000km (5,000 hours) 


Figure 26 TCO comparisons for technologies‟ cost as for the 2015 - 2018 period according to stakeholders‟ perspective. The 

hybrid fuel cell bus capital cost is evaluated through the bottom-up approach proposed in Table 7 and displayed by Figure 16. The 

maintenance fee for hybrid fuel cell and hybrid diesel bus includes the maintenance of the hybrid-electric drivetrain. Warranty of 

the fuel cell system is considered up to 20,000hours. Figures refer to 150kW hybridisations. 

63


6.1.3 Total Cost of Ownership 2018 - 2022 

From 2018 to 2022, further cost reductions in fuel cell systems are projected, due to 

synergies with developments in automotive systems and progressive improvements in 

bus fuel cell system costs. In the TCO model presented here, it is assumed that FC 

system costs reduce to between €140 and €350 per kW, based on automotive stack 

technology, but that warranties remain at 10-12,000 hours (implying more frequent stack 

replacement). This level is higher than the target price for automotive FC systems, as in 

practice fuel cell bus systems will be more costly due to more expensive balance of plant 

and a need to include stack replacement costs to meet the warranty requirements for the 

stacks. 

At the lower bound of these fuel cell system prices, the FC Bus can compete on total 

cost of ownership with hybrid diesel technologies. At the upper bound, there is still some 

increase in overall ownership costs. 

This suggests that as the automotive fuel cell sector evolves, fuel cell buses are likely to 

move to a sustainable, unsubsidized position in the market. This should lead to 

substantial take-up, particularly given that the analysis presented here does not include 

a financial allocation for the benefits of reduced noise and air polluting emissions 

compared with diesel vehicles. 

It is also worthwhile to note that the fuel cell bus costs projected here are well within the 

trolley bus cost range, suggesting that the technology can comfortably compete with 

trolley buses for clean urban routes by 2020. 

Stack manufacturers developing dedicated bus fuel cell systems also project substantial 

cost reductions between 2018 and 2022 (provided there is sufficient demand to justify 

continued development in the period leading up to 2015). These systems will have 

longer lifetimes and warranties (over 20,000hrs) and lower costs – below €800/kW. 

At these costs the conclusion above relating to the auto-model should also hold true for 

the „bus stack only‟ philosophy. 

64


Euro / km /bus 

€ 2.50 

€ 2.00 

€ 1.50 

€ 1.00 

€ 0.50 

€ 0.00 

Total Cost Of Ownership (12 years life, 12m platform): 

comparisons at 2018 - 2022 costs (high FC car take-up) 

Upper 

Bound 

Lower 

Bound 

Upper 

Bound 

Lower 

Bound 

Upper 

Bound 

Lower 

Bound 

Upper 

Bound 


Lower 

Bound 

Taxes on fuel 

CO2 price 


maintenance 






Financing 




Fuel cell bus capital cost: 350,000 - 550,000 Euro 

Fuel cell bus maintenance fee: 20,000 Euro /year 

Fuel cell system cost: 140 - 350 Euro/kW 

Fuel cell system specs: 150kW; 10,000 - 12,000 hours warranty 

Fuel economy: 8 - 9 kg-H2/100km 







Fuel economy: 28 - 36 liters / 100km 


Diesel bus 





Trolley bus 










Discount period : 12 years 


Annual mileage: 70,000km (5,000 hours) 


Figure 27 TCO comparisons for technology costs as in 2018 - 2022. In this comparison, the cost of the fuel cell system reflects 

the existence of a large automotive fuel cell system market, driven by a demand of fuel cell cars (> 10,000 units / year). The bus 

fuel cell system is assumed to share highly standardised components with the car fuel cell systems and, accordingly, the same 

warranty (10,000 – 12,000 hours). Figures refer to 150kW hybridisations. 

65


6.1.4 Sensitivity to fuel prices 

These results have been further investigated through sensitivity analyses on pricing 

issues relating to the fuel. We analysed the variation of the difference between the fuel 

cell bus and diesel average TCO performance varying:- 

Diesel fuel cost 

Hydrogen fuel cost 

CO2 price 

Figure 28, Figure 29 and Figure 30 below summarise the results of a set sensitivity 

analyses for the 2015 - 2018 and 2018 - 2022 periods. The results show how changes in 

the fuel prices affect the difference in average TCO between the fuel cell bus and the 

diesel bus. Figure 30 focuses on the diesel fuel prices required for achieving TCO parity 

in the 2018 to 2022 period. 

From the sensitivity analysis, the fuel cell bus TCO performance is clearly very sensitive 

to the cost of hydrogen and diesel fuels. This is particularly pronounced in the 2018 - 

2022 cost range, where the relatively small cost of the fuel cell system maximizes the 

advantages from a lower hydrogen fuel cost and higher diesel fuel cost. 

Both sensitivity analyses show that the TCO performance of hybrid fuel cell buses can 

be improved by up to 18% - 40% in comparison with diesel buses if the hydrogen cost is 

halved and by up to 20% - 50% if the untaxed diesel fuel cost doubles by 2018 - 2022. 

On the other hand, higher hydrogen costs (e.g. through taxation) or the possibility of 

removing taxes on diesel fuel would have a significant negative affect the fuel cell bus 

TCO performance. 

In conclusion, in order to ease the competitiveness of hybrid fuel cell buses in 

comparison with diesel buses it is important to:- 

Achieve lower bounds prices of hydrogen 

Fully tax diesel fuel at the same rate as that used for passenger cars 

Avoid taxing hydrogen fuel, certainly until the buses have achieved a 

commercially viable capital cost 

The price of CO2 emissions plays a very limited role, even for prices as high as 

€120/tonne. It should be noted, however, that the environmental benefits of fuel cell 

technology are more than simply reducing CO2 emissions. The introduction of the 

technology in urban centres would displace a range of harmful pollutants such as NOx 

and PMs, currently emitted by the diesel bus fleet in operation. In this TCO model, 

however, the urban air quality is not monetized. 

66


Sensitivity analysis: difference between Hybrid Fuel Cell and Diesel Buses TCO 

performance - average values 2015 - 2018 

Untaxed Diesel cost + 50% 

No taxes on Diesel fuel 

H2 price + 50% 

H2 price - 50% 

CO2 price + 50% 

Baseline: ∆TCO = €1.25/ km/bus 

-20% 

20% 

18% 

-18% 

Baseline assumptions: 

Hydrogen price at the pump: 

4 - 6 Euro/kg 

Diesel price: 

1.15 Euro / liter (taxed), 

0.58 Euro / liter (untaxed) 

CO2 price: 

30 - 60 Euro/tonne 

-2% 

Improved TCO performance 

for Hybrid FC Buses 

Figure 28 Sensitivity analysis of the average difference between TCO performances of 

fuel cell buses (powered by a 150kW FC system) and diesel buses - technologies‟ cost 

as by 2015 - 2018. 

Sensitivity analysis: difference between Hybrid Fuel Cell and Diesel Buses TCO 

performance - average values 2018 - 2022 

Untaxed Diesel cost + 50% 

No taxes on Diesel fuel 

H2 price + 50% 

H2 price - 50% 

CO2 price + 50% 

Baseline: ∆TCO = €0.43/km/bus 

-57% 

56% 

42% 

-42% 

Baseline assumptions: 

Hydrogen price at the pump: 

4 - 5 Euro/kg 

Diesel price: 

1.15 Euro / liter (taxed), 

0.58 Euro / liter (untaxed) 

CO2 price: 

30 - 60 Euro/tonne 

-5% 

Improved TCO performance 

for Hybrid FC Buses 

Figure 29 Sensitivity analysis of the average difference between TCO performances of 

fuel cell (powered by a 150kW FC system) and diesel buses and diesel buses - 

technologies‟ cost as by 2018 - 2022. 

67



Total Cost Of Ownership: hybrid fuel cell buses in comparison with diesel buses 

(values as for 2018-22 cost projections, untaxed hydrogen price at the pump: €4-5/kg ) 

2.0 

1.8 

1.6 

1.4 

1.2 

1.0 

0.8 

0.6 

0.4 

0.2 

0.0 

Hybrid fuel cell buses @ ~ 2020 Diesel buses @ different diesel prices 

Green Hydrogen cost premium (if at 

€8/kg, e.g. assuming electrolysis from 

excess wind capacity) 

Taxes on diesel (€0.57/litre) 

Diesel bus TCO @ untaxed diesel fuel 

price = €2/litre 


price = €1.5/litre 


price = €1/litre 


price = €0.58/litre 

Hybrid Fuel Cell (2018-2022) 75kW 

Hybrid Fuel Cell (2018-2022) 150kW 

Figure 30 TCO comparison between hybrid fuel cell and basic diesel buses as for 2018 

– 2022 cost assumption for different taxed diesel fuel prices (averaged values). The 

analysis suggests TCO parity for diesel fuel prices of approx. €2/litre, assuming a 

hydrogen cost at the pump of €4-5/kg and no taxation on the fuels. The figure also 

describes how the use of green hydrogen (derived from e.g. electricity derived from 

renewable sources) may imply a further cost premium on top of buses‟ TCO (left hand 

side of the picture). Assuming a green hydrogen cost at the pump of €8/kg 18 , for 

example, TCO parity is still achievable if taxes on diesel are included (e.g. for a final 

diesel fuel prices of approx. €2.5/litre). 

Remark: 

A recent EU coalition study into hydrogen for passenger cars 19 concludes that 

hydrogen costs (untaxed) at the pump below 5€/kg are feasible beyond 2020. As this 

refers to higher pressure filling that is unlikely to be required for buses, this suggests 

even lower hydrogen costs can be achieved. 

Looking at the medium-long term, the study also concluded that hydrogen is likely to be 

produced by a broad technology mix which would ultimately deliver zero carbon 

hydrogen by approximately 2050. 

Looking at the short or medium term (2010 - 2025), however, green hydrogen is likely 

to cost up to two times more than hydrogen from conventional technologies („brown‟ 

hydrogen). 

18 

Based on Industry projections for wind derived green hydrogen costs in 2020 supplied during 

the project. 

19 

A Portfolio of Power-trains for Europe: a fact-based analysis - The Role of Battery Electric 

Vehicles, Plug-in Hybrids and Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles, McKinsey & Company, available at 

http://www.europeanclimate.org/documents/Power_trains_for_Europe.pdf 

68


6.1.5 TCO analysis for other hybridisations 

The results of the total cost of ownership analysis discussed above proved to be 

relatively unaffected by the specific hybridisation design of fuel cell buses. 

Clearly, the overall bus capital and ownership cost slightly varies with the hybridisation 

designs as they typically requires a different fuel cell rated power, energy storage 

capacity and, in some cases, on-board hydrogen storage capacity. 

This cost difference, however, is predicted to greatly reduce as the cost of these key 

components and the bus itself decreases in time. 


6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 

0 

Total Cost Of Ownership (TCO): 150kW & 75kW FC bus 

in comparison with diesel, diesel hybrid and trolley buses (2010 - 2020) Taxes on fuel 

Cost projections based on a set of assumptions – please refer 

to the contents of this study 

figures as at 2015 - 2020 

cost projections 

CO2 price 


maintenance 






Financing 


Figure 31 Snapshot of the main findings of the Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) analysis 

in comparison with diesel and trolley bus technologies in the 2010 – 2020 time frame. 

Figures includes results for both 150kW and 75kW hybridisations. The analysis, which is 

based on untaxed hydrogen and untaxed diesel prices, includes the effect of diesel 

taxation on the top of the column. Cost figures are expressed at 2010 money value. 

69


6.1.6 Outlook to 2030 

The analysis above suggests that by 2020 hybrid fuel cell technology is unlikely to reach 

a competitive position in comparison with diesel-powered alternatives. This is ultimately 

envisaged to be achieved in the period between 2025 and 2030. 

Extending the TCO analysis to 2030, and excluding taxation on the diesel fuel, 

hybrid fuel cell buses can demonstrate better economic performance (on TCObasis) 

than diesel and diesel hybrid buses by 2030, with an untaxed diesel fuel 

price over €0.80/litre. 


2.5 

2 

1.5 

1 

0.5 

0 

Total Cost Of Ownership (TCO): outlook to 2030 

hybrid fuel cell buses in comparison with diesel, diesel hybrid and trolley buses Taxes on fuel 

Untaxed diesel price: €0.58/litre 

Taxed price: €1.15/litre 

Hybrid FC buses Diesel buses 

at ~ 2030 cost 

(2030) 

(150kW & 75kW hybridisation, 

untaxed hydrogen cost at the pump: €4- 4.5/kg 

Untaxed diesel price: €0.90/litre 

Taxed price: €1.70/litre 

Diesel hybrid buses 

(2030) 

Trolley buses 

(2030) 

CO2 price 


maintenance 





Overhead contact wire network - Financing 


Figure 32 Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) analysis - outlook to 2030 in comparison with 

diesel and trolley bus technologies. Figures includes results for both 150kW and 75kW 

FC hybridisations at 2030 cost. The graph, which is based on untaxed hydrogen, include 

a comparison at two different untaxed diesel prices - €0.58/litre (2010 price) and 

€0.90/litre - whilst the effect of taxation on the diesel is included on the top of the 

columns. 

70


7 Conclusions 

This document analysed information available from recent international fuel cell bus 

demonstrations and from bilateral dialogues with the members of the Hydrogen Bus 

Alliance and key industry stakeholders. The study looks at historical techno-economic 

performance of fuel cell buses, cost structure of a hybrid fuel cell bus and the Total Cost 

of Ownership in comparison with alternative bus technologies. The main findings can be 

summarised as follows: 

The fuel cell bus sector is populated by a number of competitors, offering different 

expertise and services. The number of competitors in the market has increased over 

time, with at least 12 fuel cell bus providers and 9 fuel cell manufacturers competing 

for business in the space. The recent demonstration market has however been 

dominated by fewer players (in terms of number of buses deployed) – Daimler, New 

Flyer and Van Hool within the bus builders and Ballard and UTC within the fuel cell 

manufacturers. 

Of particular note, only 2-3 out of the six major European OEMs, however, have 

significant demonstration experience with hydrogen buses and are actively engaged 

in the sector. There is a general consensus among industry players that a wider 

participation of the larger players would be beneficial for the sector. 

Demonstration activity has occurred in waves, with a major increase in deployment 

around 2003, followed by a next wave based on so called „next generation‟ hybrid 

fuel cell buses which will enter service in the period 2010-2011. By the end of 2011, 

approx. 110 fuel cell buses will be in day to day service worldwide. 

The analysis of historical performance data indicated that fuel cell bus performance 

is improving in time, evolving towards 2015 targets. The table below provides a 

snapshot of the key metrics: 

71


* Fuel economy depends on drive cycles. It is worth noting that there is not a standard drive cycle to date 

and hence these figures are indicative of best of class urban drive conditions only. 

** Availability is defined as the percentage of days of actual service compared to the number of day of 

scheduled service (over the year). 

*** Best of class performance range. 

Among the hydrogen bus options, hybridised fuel cell designs demonstrate far better 

fuel economy than non-hybridised fuel cell and hydrogen-fuelled internal combustion 

buses. The vast majority of hydrogen buses are now being built in a hybrid fuel cell 

configuration and it is assumed that this will be the basis for commercialising 

hydrogen buses. 

State of the art hybrid fuel cell buses provide one of two genuinely zero emission bus 

options for the urban transit market (the other is an electric drivetrain - typically in a 

trolley bus). Depending on the source of hydrogen, the buses can provide a zero 

carbon solution for public transit. Even using today‟s production from natural gas, 

there are considerable carbon savings available over conventional diesel buses (up 

to 50%). 

Other advantages over diesel vehicles include: substantially higher fuel efficiency 

(up to twice a diesel bus on a calorific basis) reduced urban noise, and in the long 

term reduced maintenance requirements (due to fewer moving parts and hence less 

lubrication etc.) 

The EC‟s HyFLEET:CUTE project proved that hydrogen buses can be operated 

reliably – a availability figure of 92% was achieved in this trial. It is important to note 

that this was a well-controlled trial (with maintenance technicians at each site) and 

did not involve a hybrid drivetrain. 

72


Hybrid fuel cell bus trials, by contrast, have shown relatively poor availability (55- 

80%) in trials before 2010. These will need to be improved before the technology 

can be rolled out outside small demonstration trials. The next generation of hybrid 

fuel cell bus trials (starting 2010) are designed to prove that the technology can 

achieve availability standards over 90% which will be sufficient to begin to 

commercialise the technology. 

The next generation of bus demonstrations (such as CHIC 20 ) are also aimed at 

understanding the fuel economy of next generation FC buses. Initial tests suggest 

they will achieve the lower bound of the fuel consumption range, e.g. up to 40% 

improvement over an equivalent diesel route at parity of calorific content. 

The main technical constraints for fuel cell buses, compared to conventional diesel 

vehicles are: 

o Fill time – which is currently around 10 minutes (best available is 7 minutes), 

compared to a diesel fill times of approx. 3 minutes. This creates logistical 

problem for bus operators. 

o Availability – equivalent availability to diesel vehicles has not yet been 

demonstrated for fuel cells in hybrid configurations. This is expected to be 

achieved in the next generation demonstrations. 

o Lack of infrastructure – meaning that dedicated hydrogen fuelling 

infrastructure is required at hydrogen bus depots – this is bulky and also 

requires very high availability as there are no local back-up options available 

Diesel hybrid vehicles are currently gaining traction in the market for environmentally 

benign urban buses. These have a total cost of ownership higher than diesel buses, 

suggesting public authorities are prepared to fund some additional cost of operating 

environmentally friendly 

However, a Total Cost of Ownership analysis for today‟s fuel cell buses suggests 

that the cost of operating a fuel cell bus today is over three times that of a 

conventional diesel bus. This additional cost is not acceptable to bus operators, 

meaning the technology must reduce in cost to gain genuine commercial traction. 

There are two main approaches to cost reduction. In the first, progressive 

generations of fuel cell systems designed for buses are projected to reduce fuel cell 

system costs below €2,000/kW (from over €4,000/kW today), whilst increased 

volumes of fuel cell buses reduce the costs for bus builders to assemble and sell the 

buses. This would reduce fuel cell bus costs to a lower bound of approximately 

20 http://chic-project.eu/ 

73


€500,000 (for large orders) and an upper bound o €950,000 between 2015 and 

2018. This will require: 

o Next generation of fuel cell systems, with lower component costs and simpler 

manufacturing processes (expected to be launched 2013-2014) 

o the market experiencing standardisation in the hybrid manufacturing process, 

reducing labour costs and overheads for bus manufacturers 

o An increase in fuel cell bus sales (of the order of low 100s in the period 

2012-2015), which leads to economies of scale for buses and fuel cells and 

helps reduce some of the risk premium applied to FC buses by bus builders 

On a Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) basis, these buses are not expected to 

compete with diesel bus technologies by 2015/18. They may, however, be able to 

gain some market traction on environmentally sensitive routes which would typically 

be serviced by trolley buses. It is therefore likely that subsidies will be also required 

beyond 2015/18 to support further increases in the size of the FC bus market. 

Beyond 2015, there are two paths being considered for further fuel cell bus cost 

reduction, which differ according to their approach to the fuel cell stack. In the first, 

volume sales for fuel cell passenger cars (from 2015 onwards) are expected to drive 

the costs of automotive stacks down to very low levels (low €100‟s of euros per kW 

for a fuel cell bus system based on a passenger car stack). These very low cost 

stacks can then be used in buses and offer low total costs of ownership, despite the 

relatively short lifetimes (automotive stacks are designed for only 5,000 hour life). 

Buses using passenger car based stacks have the potential to reduce costs well 

below €400,000 by 2022/25. 

The alternative approach is to continue to develop longer life fuel cell systems 

dedicated to the bus market. Here higher stack costs are offset by longer lifetimes. 

The development of these lower cost stacks is believed to require bus volumes in 

the 1,000‟s in the 2015 to 2020 period. Again there is potential to reduce overall bus 

costs to an affordable level by 2022/25. 

Concluding, Hydrogen bus technology is expected to provide a more flexible and 

cost effective solution (on a total cost of ownership basis) than trolley buses for new 

routes in the period between 2015 and 2020, whilst it is expected to converge 

towards diesel-fuelled bus total ownership cost levels by approx. 2025/30. At this 

point the economics will be dictated by the relative cost of diesel versus hydrogen. 

Fuelling hydrogen buses allows very large refuelling facilities to be deployed, 

potentially with very long contract life. For a bus depot requiring 1,000kg/day, with a 

guaranteed requirement for over 10 years, the untaxed hydrogen costs at the pump 

(e.g. all-inclusive) could fall below €5 - 4/kg. When improved fuel economies for fuel 

74


cell buses are included, this can lead to approximately equivalent fuel costs to diesel 

buses on an untaxed basis. 

This suggests that provided sufficient confidence is obtained in the FC buses and 

costs are reduced, infrastructure need not be a major barrier to increased FC bus 

rollout. 

Most of the refuelling stations for bus applications are currently based on trucked-in 

gaseous or liquid hydrogen, as centralized hydrogen production proved to be 

generally more cost effective than on-site technologies, particularly for the higher 

daily demands which characterize bus operation (compared with passenger cars). 

On-site production from electrolysis has tended to occur only where a very high 

priority is placed on zero carbon hydrogen as, most notably, the on-site route tends 

to lead to higher cost compared to the delivered hydrogen solutions (e.g. up to two 

or three times higher). 

For urban bus depots, there is often limited space for new fuelling equipment. This 

means station footprint can be an important factor in selecting the fuelling system of 

choice. Here, new designs are required for large scale fuelling (over 1,000kg/day), 

which will be compatible with future bus depots based on hydrogen. 

The refuelling time experienced by fuel cell bus operators range between 7 and 10 

minutes per bus, assuming 30 - 40kg of on-board hydrogen storage at 350bar. As 

typical refuelling times for diesel buses are less than 3 minutes, the longer fill times 

for hydrogen buses risks causing an unacceptable level of inconvenience for transit 

operators when dealing with fleets of over 100 buses. 


logistical (e.g. installing additional dispensers at depots to allow simultaneous 

fuelling of buses), practical (e.g. altering route patterns to allow fuelling during the 

day), or technical (e.g. pre-cooling hydrogen to allow faster fuelling or operating 700 

bar tanks to allow fuelling only every two days). It is recommended that these types 

of solutions are explored in the near term projects for hydrogen bus demonstration 

such as the CHIC project. 

75


7.1 Next Generation of bus projects: what should be expected 

Based on the analysis above, the next pre-commercial activity for hybrid fuel cell bus 

demonstrations needs to overcome two main barriers: 

Demonstrate improved availability for fuel cell hybrid buses (target: 90%), at the high 

fuel economies expected for these drivetrains – this is the main aim of the next 

generation of FC bus trials which is currently underway 

Catalyse the achievement of very low cost of fuel cell buses – this is a medium term 

target and will be linked to the volume of demand, as well as the next generation of 

fuel cell system technology 

It is clear from the TCO analysis (Section 6.1) that the priority for hybrid fuel cell buses is 

to reduce the cost of the fuel cell system. As introduced in Section 4, a substantial cost 

reduction is expected in the next few years, thanks to an enhanced durability of the fuel 

cells. 

Thereafter, stakeholders unanimously agreed in considering achievable fuel cell system 

costs as low as approx. €1,000 / kW only if the market experiences sales of low 

hundreds of buses per year (from 2012-2013 and afterwards). A consistent volume of 

sales per year would increase the confidence of the component suppliers and the bus 

manufacturers, and bring economy of scale benefits. 

More detail on suggested rollout strategies will be provided in the next NextHyLights 

WP3 deliverables (3.2 and 3.3). 

76


Annex A: International framework 

The scope of this section is to provide a concise overview of the international policy 

framework in which demonstrations of fuel cell bus have been promoted, addressing the 

role of central governments, international authorities and local associations. In These 

projects are listed in Section 2, where are provided details on budgets and stakeholders. 

USA 

USA research activities on hydrogen as an alternative transport fuels started in the 

1970s [DOE, 2010]. In the 1990s the central federal government initiated specific 

hydrogen and fuel cell research, development and demonstration programmes 

coordinated by the Department of Energy (DOE) [HRDDA, 1990] [HFA, 1996]. This 

commitment received further support from the five-year, $1.2 billion-funded Hydrogen 

Fuel Initiative (HFI) promoted by the president of the United States in 2003.The HFI 

formed the basis of the USA‟s long term hydrogen and fuel cell national RD&D strategy, 

currently undertaken by the DOE‟s Hydrogen Program (HP). The DOE is the leading 

department in the coordination of the national-wide, multi-departmental RD&D activities 

on hydrogen production, distribution and end-use [DOE, 2010]. 

USA‟s fuel cell bus demonstrations originate in this long-term federal interest in 

developing alternative transport fuels. The RD&D activities on fuel cell buses in the 

United States have been funded essentially by two major national agencies (the DOE 

and the Federal Transport Authority) and by a number of local authorities. In the national 

framework, California has also played a key role in rolling out alternative transport 

technologies. 

A. The Federal Transport Authority (FTA) 

The FTA has been the key national agency in supporting alternative transport 

technologies, co-funding the first American demonstration of a methanol-fuelled 

hydrogen fuel cell buses (FCB) in the 1980s at the University of Georgetown [NREL, 

2009]. From the 1990s, the FTA worked in parallel with the DOE‟s hydrogen RD&D 

programs in funding FCB demonstrations. In 2005 the FTA undertook a $49 millionfunded 

National Fuel Cell Bus Technology Development Program (NFCBP) to 

complement and support the HFI, with the precise aim to facilitate the development 

of commercially viable hydrogen FCB and related infrastructures [FTA, 2006]. More 

details on the FTA- NFCBP are reported in Figure 33, below. In addition to this 

program, the FTA is funding smaller projects in a number of American universities 

(Georgetown, Delaware, Texas and Alabama, for a total of 6 fuel cell buses) one 

battery dominant fuel cell bus for the city of Burbank (California) and two hybrid fuel 

cell buses for Sun Line Transit (California). 

77


Figure 33 FTA – NFBP‟s structure and projects details 

B. The DOE‟s Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) department. 

The Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) is the federal office 

responsible for DOE‟s hydrogen and fuel cell programs. The last two federal 

programs were the Hydrogen, Fuel Cells, and Infrastructure Technologies (HFCIT) 

program and the Fuel Cell Technology (FCT) program 21 . EERE coordinates RD&D 

activities in partnership with academia, industry and national laboratories with the 

objective to demonstrate hydrogen and fuel cell technologies in real-world 

applications. In addition, the EERE is responsible for the collection of technoeconomic 

data and for performing state of art evaluations [EERE, 2010]. 

21 Respectively under the former DOE’s Controlled Hydrogen Fleet and Infrastructure 

Demonstration and Validation Project and the current DOE’s Hydrogen Program [EERE, 

2010][NREL, 2003] 

78


Figure 34 EERE Fuel Cell Technologies (FCT) program RD&D structure. The Program 

is part of the DOE Hydrogen Program. The picture is taken from [DOE, 2009]. 

C. California‟s authorities and associations 

The Republic of California has played a particular role in promoting the 

demonstration of fuel cell technology, being the most active state so far. The first 

hydrogen-fuelled FCB demo fully operated by local bus operators were conducted in 

California in the early 2000s [NREL, 2003] and two out of the three transit agencies 

that are still operating hydrogen buses today are Californian (AC Transit and Sun 

Line Transit). In addition, the San Francisco bay area is the location of the 

forthcoming large scale FCB demonstration project (ZEB Area project, ZEBA, Figure 

17 below) [NREL, 2009]. The Californian demonstrations are funded by a network of 

local authorities and associations 22 and by private consortia (such as CalSTART). 

California‟s activities on FCB demonstrations are driven by the Air Resources Board 

(CARB)‟s Fleet Rule for Transit Agencies. This rule, adopted in 2000, imposes 

precise emission targets for new urban vehicles and includes the so called Zero 

Emission Bus (ZBus) regulation. The ZBus is an obligation on the Californian bus 

fleets exceeding 200 buses. It requires the conversion of 15% of the bus fleet in 

22 Such as the California Air Resolution Board (CARB), the Bay Area Air Quality Management 

District (BAAQMD), the California Fuel Cell Partnership (CaFCP), the California Energy 

Commission (CEC). 

79


advanced zero emission buses (ZEB) by mid 2012 [CARB, 2010]. This target could 

imply that up to 380 ZEB could be deployed in California by 2015. The CARB is cofinancing 

the ZEB Area project, as well as a $1.4 million Proterra fuel cell bus project 

in the city of Burbank, and two new hybrid fuel cell buses at Sun Line Transit. 

Figure 35 Essential funding structure of San Francisco‟s bay area bus demonstration 

USA‟s existing hydrogen infrastructures has been generally commissioned ad hoc for 

each demonstration. However, recent USA programmes such as the Transportation 

Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) and the DOE‟s Clean Cities 

programs allowed some transit agencies to receive extra grants for financing hydrogen 

infrastructures. Precisely, AC Transit received TIGER grants to finance a solar-based 

hydrogen production plant, and CT Transit received a Clean Cities‟ grant for a hydrogen 

refuelling station [NREL, 2009b]. According to the US DOE, in mid-2009 there were 60 

Hydrogen Filling Stations across the country 23 , essentially based on delivered hydrogen 

(either liquid or compressed), onsite Steam Methane Reforming (SMR) and onsite 

electrolysis [DOE, 2009] [NREL, 2009c]. 

23 55 in operation according to DOE’s last presentation at IPHE Hydrogen Infrastructure 

Workshop, held in February 2010. 

80


The FTA, DOE and CARB developed their programmes having in mind precise targets 

on the techno-economic performance of FCB and hydrogen infrastructures. These 

targets are essentially the DOE‟s targets for fuel cell vehicles, summarised in Table 11. 

Table 11 DOE‟s selected Fuel Cell performance targets for vehicles by 2015-2020 

Authority 

DOE 

Efficiency FC 

durability Availability 

50% at 

full 

power 

5,000 

hours 

Fuel 

Econo 

my 

85%* NA 

Vehicle 

Range 

300 

miles 

FC 

cost 

$30 

/kW** 


fuelling 

rate 

Sources: [NREL, 2009c], [DOE, 2009]. 

* This target is intended for FC buses according to transit agencies needs [NREL, 2008]. 

** This target is intended for FC light vehicles. Heavy duty fuel cells are expected to cost more. 

Canada 

1.6kg/min 

@ 350bar 


costs 

(delivered) 

$2-3/gge 

Canada‟s hydrogen and fuel cells RD&D activities came under the umbrella of a network 

formed by the Canadian National Research Council (CNRC), the Canadian Hydrogen 

and Fuel Cell Association (CHFCA) and the Canadian Department of Industry (Industry 

Canada, IC). Demonstration activities benefit also from local programs such as the 

Hydrogen Highway in the British Columbia, a voluntary network of private and public 

partners aiming to commercialize FC technologies in the transport sector. 

Although Canada has not had a large transit bus demonstration project in the recent 

past, the country is now hosting the world‟s largest hybrid FCB fleet. This demonstration 

is operated by a single transit agency (BC Transit) and started in time for the 2010 

Olympic Winter Games for a period of four years (2010-2014), with an initial funding of 

CAN$89 million provided by The British Columbia province, BC Transit and Canada‟s 

Public Transit Capital Trusts [CHFCA, 2010][IC, 2008]. The demonstration includes the 

world largest hydrogen refuelling station (HRS), which has a dispensing capacity of 

1000kg/day [IC, 2008] [NREL, 2009b]. 

Canada‟s targets on hydrogen fuelled fuel cell vehicles have been developed by Industry 

Canada (IC). IC has recently published Canada‟s fuel cell commercialisation plan [IC, 

2008], stating indicative targets on the performance of hydrogen fuel cell buses for 

achieving their commercialisation by 2015. These targets are summarised in Table 12, 

below. 

81


Table 12 Canada‟s target on hydrogen-fuelled FC buses by 2015 

Authority Efficiency FC 

durability 

Industry 

Canada 

NA 

Sources: [IC, 2008]. 

Europe 

20,000 

hours 

Availability Fuel 

Economy 

Vehicle 

Range 

95% NA NA 


cost 

850,000 

US$ 


fuelling 

rate 

NA 


costs 

(delivered) 

2.5 

US$/kg 

The European Commission (EC) has promoted some 200 hydrogen and fuel cells RD&D 

activities across the European Union in the past 14 years for a total contribution of over 

€550 million. In compliance with the commission aim to guarantee a sustainable, 

competitive and reliable energy future to member states, the EC co-funded hydrogen 

and fuel cells activities throughout the last four Framework Programmes (FP). During the 

5 th FP (1999-2000) the EC created the European Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technology 

Platform (EHFC-TP) in order to accelerate the deployment of the technology in the 

European market and bring together a common platform of key public and private 

stakeholders. With the 7 th (2007-2013) FP‟s Joint Technology Initiative on hydrogen and 

fuel cells (HFC-JTI), the EC took the further step establishing the Fuel Cell and 

Hydrogen Joint Undertaking (FCH-JU) in 2008. This is intended to be the 

implementation of the EHFC-TP experience. The FCH-JU is a public-private partnership 

aiming to accelerate the deployment of hydrogen and fuel cell technology through a 

series of targeted projects, in strict connection with industry. The FCH-JU works as a 

long-term platform where the industry partners (represented by the Industry Group, IG), 

research partners (represented by the N.ERGHY association) and European 

Commission (JTI) meet for developing synergies (Figure 36, below). [JTI, 2010] [EC, 

2010a] [EC, 2010b] [EC, 2010c]. 

82


Figure 36 European Commission's Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Joint Undertaking (HFC-JU) 

structure. Sources: FCH-JU Stakeholders General Assembly 2009 [JTI, 2010] 

The EC has co-funded through its FPs the majority of the bus demonstrations across 

Europe, together with local governments, associations and industry partners. The 

demonstrations have involved some 24 cities in over 11 countries. Europe hosted the 

world‟s largest (at that time) FCB demonstration, CUTE (9 European cities with 3 buses 

each) and its more international extension HyFleet:CUTE (7 European cities, 1 

Icelandic, 1 Chinese and 1 Australian, for a total of 33 HFCBs). Besides the EC efforts, 

Europe is characterised by a network of public-private associations active in promoting 

hydrogen and fuel cell RD&D activities on regional scale. Some of the main associations 

are resumed below. 

83


Table 13 Principal European Hydrogen associations active in vehicle and infrastructure 

RD&D 

Name 

Clean Energy 

Partnership 

(CEP) 

European Hydrogen 

Association 

(EHA) 

Fuel Cell And Hydrogen 

Network NRW 

Brief Description and website 

Founded in 2002, the CEP is a partnership of 12 international 

private firms and two public transit operators aiming to 

demonstrate the safety and viability of hydrogen-based road 

transportation, setting up multi-technology demonstrations in 

north Germany (Berlin, Hamburg, North-Rhine Westphalia). 

CEP demonstration projects are subdivided in three phases, 

which, among other targets, will deploy over 11 hydrogen 

refuelling stations and over 90 fuel cell cars by 2012. 

Phase I, 2004-2008, Berlin: two hydrogen filling stations, some 

25 cars, a number of centralized and decentralized hydrogen 

production units. 

Phase II, 2008-2010: establishing the “Hydrogen Region 

Hamburg-Berlin”: some 40 cars, a new fleet of hydrogen buses 

and three new hydrogen refuelling stations; 

Phase III, 2011-2016: focus on market preparation for vehicles 

& infrastructures commercialization. Phase III aims to : deploy 

over 90 fuel cells cars, increase the share of renewably 

produced hydrogen to up to 50% by 2016 and connect the 

infrastructure network with the Scandinavian one. 

http://www.cleanenergypartnership.de/index.php?pid=13&L=1 

Founded in 2000, the EHA currently represents 15 national 

associations and 7 industry firms active in the hydrogen 

infrastructure development. Through its extensive network, the 

EHA aims to encourage the technology deployment across 

Europe promoting knowledge sharing, joint actions and 

cooperation between members. The Association is committed 

in keeping a direct contact with the relevant local authorities 

and Europe‟s Authorities, such as the EC, and to identify 

synergies with similar international associations. The EHA is 

currently working with HyRaMP (see below). 

http://www.h2euro.org/category/home 

Founded in 2000 with the purpose of encouraging RD&D 

activities on hydrogen and fuel cell technologies, the network 

catalyses synergies between 350 members (private firms, 

public authorities and international corporations), covering the 

whole hydrogen and fuel cell value chain (from production to 

84


HyCologne 

European Region and 

Municipalities 

Partnership for 

Hydrogen and Fuel 

Cells 

(HyRaMP) 

Scandinavian Hydrogen 

Highway Partnership 

(SHHP) 

end-use applications). So far, the network has initiated and cofunded 

60+ projects for an overall value of more than €120 

million (of which 74m directly provided by the network). 

http://www.fuelcell-nrw.de/index.php?id=3&L= 

HyCologne is a public-private partnership of over 20 members 

localized in west Germany, that supports hydrogen and fuel 

cell projects in the area of Cologne, Dusseldorf, Aachen and 

Bonn providing knowledge, connections and infrastructures. 

HyCologne‟s two major current activities is the promoting of a 

hydrogen powered bus fleet and industrial-scale hydrogenpowered 

power plant in order to valorize the abundant 

availability of hydrogen from local chemical industries. 

http://www.hycologne.de/home.html 

Founded in 2008, the partnership represents 26 European 

Regions and Municipalities of 7 European state members as a 

unique influential stakeholder in the EC‟s JTI FCH. The 

partnership aims to help the local communities to play a key 

role in developing the European hydrogen and fuel cell 

deployment strategy. 

http://www.hy-ramp.eu/category/home 

Quoting SHHP‟s homepage, “The SHHP constitutes a 

transnational networking platform that catalyses and 

coordinates collaboration between three national networking 

bodies – HyNor (Norway), Hydrogen Link (Denmark) and 

Hydrogen Sweden (Sweden)”. SHHP partners work together 

with an extensive network of local authorities, research centres 

and private firms aiming to facilitate the creation of an 

integrated hydrogen infrastructure network along the three 

Scandinavian countries, ideally by 2012. SHHP‟s partners aim 

to realize the Europe‟s largest hydrogen-powered vehicle 

demonstration, having the ambitious target to deploy some 15- 

30 hydrogen filling stations, 100 buses, 500 cars and 500 

specialty vehicles by 2015. SHHP intends to integrate the 

Scandinavian network with the rest of Europe. 

http://www.scandinavianhydrogen.org/ 

85


In the European context Germany is the leading country in promoting fuel cell and 

hydrogen RD&D activities. Box 1, below, summarises the German framework identifying 

programmes, stakeholders and some key number of the German fuel cell and hydrogen 

industry. 

Box 1 The German experience on fuel cell and hydrogen RD&D programmes 

As reported by Germany Trade and Invest, the foreign and inward investment agency of the 

Federal Republic of Germany, the German hydrogen and fuel cell market is the largest in 

Europe. The country has hosted the 70% of the European fuel cell demonstrations, 

possesses a network of some 350 companies and institutes active in hydrogen and fuel cell 

activities and benefits from an overall budget of €2 billion for RD&D activities throughout 

2008 – 2015. 

German hydrogen and fuel cell RD&D are promoted on a national level by the National 

Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technology Innovation Programme (NIP), initiated in 2006. The NIP 

aims to accelerate the commercialisation of hydrogen and fuel cell technology in Germany 

with the overall objective to favour the meeting of environmental targets, the creation of 

sustainable jobs and the strengthening of the German technological competiveness in the 

international market. The NIP is managed and implemented by the National Organisation for 

hydrogen and fuel cell technology GmbH (NOW). The NOW ensures communication, funds 

integration and collaborations between the regional and international projects that take place 

in Germany. In other words, the NOW is a “program management organisation” which 

ensures the realisation of NIP‟s goals. It coordinates an extensive network of public-private 

associations that promotes regional RD&D activities (such as CEP, Fuel Cell and Hydrogen 

Network NRW, HyCologne, HySolutions Hamburg, etc.). 

The NIP has a budget of €1.4 billion (for the period 2007-2016) provided by a number of 

Federal Ministries and private industry partners in form of a 50/50 private-public partnership. 

Out of the €0.7 billion provided by the Federal ministries, €0.5 billion are explicitly dedicated 

for fuel cell demonstration and market preparation projects, of which 54% is for transport 

applications (hydrogen production and distribution included). 

In September 2009 the H2 Mobility Initiative was launched by a number of leading industry 

firms and NOW. The initiative aims to develop a comprehensive nation-wide hydrogen 

infrastructure network by 2015 through a three-phase plan of action. The plan aims to set 

Germany as the forerunning member state in the commercialisation of fuel cell vehicles. 

The EC‟s Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking has targets for achieving fuel cell 

vehicles commercialisation. The targets for fuel cell buses are summarised in Table 14. 

A recent call for funding fuel cell buses provides targets for buses deployed in 2010- 

2011 (20 fuel cell buses in 3 sites). Large term targets would be developed for future 

calls (up to 500 buses in at least 10 European sites by 2015, according to the FCH-JU‟s 

Multi-Annual Implementation Plan 2008 – 2013). 

86


Table 14 JTI-JU targets for hydrogen-fuelled FC buses by 2015 

Authorit 

y 

JTI NA 

Efficienc 

y 

FC 

durabilit 

y 

6,000 

hours 

Availabili 

ty 

> 85% 

Fuel 

Economy 

< 11 – 13 

kg/100 km 

Vehicle 

Range 

NA 

FC 

cost 

100 

Euro 

/kW* 

Sources: [JTI, 2010] 

*This target is intended for FC light vehicles. Heavy duty fuel cells are expected to cost more. 

CUTE and HYFLEET:CUTE 

Hydroge 

n 

fuelling 

rate 

200kg/da 

y 5 

vehicles 

hours 


costs 

(delivere 

d) 

5 Euro/kg 

HyFleet:CUTE has been the largest FCB world‟s demonstration so far, operating 33 fuel 

cell buses in 10 cities, of which 7 European, 1 Icelandic, 1 Chinese and 1 Australian. 

The project was intended as a continuation of the CUTE (Clear Urban Transport for 

Europe) demonstration, an EC initiative that involved 27 buses in 9 European cities from 

2003 and 2006. HyFleet:CUTE de facto extended the operational life of CUTE‟s fuel cell 

buses where possible. 

The demonstration received €19 million from EC‟s 6 th FP and €24 million from 31 

Industry partners, deployed a total of 33 non-hybrid fuel cell buses and 14 hydrogen 

fuelled ICE buses from 2006 to end 2009. 6 HFCBs are still operating in Hamburg till 

mid-2010, thanks to EC funding for a one-year project extension. The demonstration 

developed and tested a range of hydrogen infrastructure and delivery options, testing 4 

on-site water electrolysers, 2 on-site LPG/CNG steam reforming plants and 6 liquid and 

gaseous externally supplied hydrogen refuelling stations (79% from renewable). 

CHIC 

CHIC - Clean Hydrogen for European Cities - builds on CUTE and HYFLEET:CUTE‟s 

success by: 

Deploying 26 next generation hybrid fuel cell buses in medium/small size fleets in 5 

European cities (Aargau/St.Gallen, Bolzano, London, Milan and Oslo) 

Improve “first generation” hydrogen refuelling facilities and implement “second 

generation” hydrogen infrastructures. 

The project, meant to be the next logical step toward commercialisation after the 

HYFLEET:CUTE demonstration, aims at demonstrating the full suitability of next 

generation hybrid fuel cell bus technology and hydrogen refuelling facilities for full-time 

transport services. 

As a part of its objectives, CHIC aims therefore at: 

87


1. Achieving a number of performance targets which will ease the integration process 

of the technology into todays‟ public transport standards. The most relevant targets 

are summarised in Table 15, below. 

Table 15 CHIC‟s key targets for hybrid fuel cell buses and hydrogen refuelling 

infrastructures 

Targets for hybrid 

fuel cell buses 

Targets for 

hydrogen 

refuelling facilities 

Sources: CHIC‟s kick-off meeting 

Buses availability: 

85% 

Buses fuel 

economy: 

13kg/100km 

Hydrogen cost (OPEX) at station: 

6,000hours 

Refuelling station 

availability: 

98% 

2. Disseminating key learning from this project and a number of other Europe-based 

hydrogen bus projects into a broader number of European stakeholders, with the 

ultimate objective to facilitate the deployment of the technology into some 14 new 

European regions. 

The project is supported by Joint Technology Initiatives‟ Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint 

Undertaking (FCH-JU) and a set of industry partners. 

Hydrogen Bus Alliance 

The Hydrogen Bus Alliance (HBA) was formed in October 2006 by a number of 

international partners characterised by an extensive experience in hydrogen bus 

demonstrations and by a common commitment to deploy at least 5 buses per partner by 

2012 (with a strong political support from local authorities). At present, the HBA include 

the transit agencies of the following: 

Amsterdam (GVB) 

Amsterdam participated both to the CUTE project and its extension Hy:FLEET CUTE. 

The City is now planning to continue its FCB experience deploying 2 fuel cell PHILEAS 

articulated bus by 2011. The city possesses one hydrogen fuelling station, still in 

operation. 

Barcelona (TNB) 

Barcelona participated both to the CUTE project and its extension Hy:FLEET CUTE. 

88


Berlin (BVG) 

Berlin participated both in HyFLEET:CUTE, and is still operating hydrogen-fuelled ICE 

buses of the latter demonstration. BVG is a partner of the "Clean Energy Partnership" 

(CEP), active together in testing car, bus and fuel station operations in Berlin and 

Hamburg area. The city possesses one hydrogen fuelling station still in operation, and 

expects three new stations by 2010. 

British Columbia (BC Transit) 

BC Transit is currently running the world largest FCB demonstration in a single transit 

region, in occasion of the 2010 Winter Games. This four-year (2010-2014), 20-bus 

demonstration includes the world‟s largest hydrogen fuelling station (HFS). 

Cologne - Regionalverkehr Köln (RVK) 

The Regionalverkehr Köln hosts the HyCologne programme. The programme acts in the 

area of Cologne, Düsseldorf, Aaachen and Bonn and aims to deploy a hydrogen bus 

fleet as well as industrial-scale hydrogen-powered power plants. RVK will deploy 2 fuel 

cell PHILEAS articulated bus by 2011 (in partnership with the City of Amsterdam), as an 

outcome of the joint venture between North Rhine Westphalia and the Dutch 

government. The RVK possesses a 100km hydrogen pipeline that could be used for the 

creation of local hydrogen distribution network. 

Hamburg (Hamburger Hochbahn) 

The Hamburger Hochbahn participated both in the CUTE project and its extension 

Hy:FLEET CUTE, which 6 FCB will be operated till mid 2010. The city possesses one 

hydrogen fuelling station with on-site electrolysers-based hydrogen production, powered 

by certified green electricity. In autumn 2009 Daimler announced a contract with 

Hamburger Hochbahn to deliver 10 new hybrid fuel cell buses in the city from 2010. 

London (Transport for London) 

London participated to the CUTE project, its extension Hy:FLEET CUTE and now it is 

one of the five European cities partner in the CHIC project. Under CHIC, Transport for 

London (TfL) will be running 8 hybrid fuel cell buses which will be refuelled in a new 

refuelling facility. 

Madrid (EMT) 

Madrid participated both to the CUTE project and its extension Hy:FLEET CUTE. 

89


Oslo (Ruter) 

Oslo, one of the key cities of the Norwegian hydrogen highway project (HyNor), has joint 

the Alliance in 2010. Through the CHIC project, the city will be running five hybrid fuel 

cell buses for 5 years. 

South Tyrol - Bolzano 

The Italian region of South Tyrol benefits from a local public-private partnership, the 

institute for Innovative Technologies (IIT), which aims to encourage local deployment of 

green technologies. The region intends to exploit its abundant hydroelectric power to 

produce hydrogen for a local fleet of fuel cell vehicles. The region aims to operate fuel 

cell buses in 2010. 

Bolzano is one of the five European cities partner in the CHIC project under which will 

run five hybrid fuel cell buses for a minimum of 5 years. 

Western Australia - Public Transport Authority of Western Australia 

The State Government of Western Australian conducted a demonstration of three 

hydrogen fuel cell buses in Perth, known as EcoBuses. The trial ran from September 

2004 to September 2007, in collaboration with CUTE and ECTOS, becoming then a 

partner of the HyFLEET:CUTE project. 

The HBA is committed to operate up to 50 per partner by 2015, aiming to act as leader 

in encouraging FCB commercialization through the commercial benefit of a joint 

demand. To date, the Alliance possesses a fleet of over 14,000 buses and an average 

yearly purchase of 1,400 buses. The Alliance shares knowledge amongst members and 

industry in order to encourage cost reductions. Finally, it is committed to assist new 

partners in developing their own demonstrations. 

In this framework, the HBA published a strategic plan where techno-economic targets 

and commitment scenarios for achieving FCB commercialization are discussed. HBA‟s 

targets are summarized in Table 16, below. 

Table 16 HBA‟s key targets to achieve fuel cell buses‟ commercialisation 


durability 

HBA NA >25,000 NA 

Sources: [HBA, 2008] 


Economy 

< 8kg 

/100km 

bus cost 

US$ 1m 

or lower 


fuelling 

rate 

1,000kg 

per day 


costs 

(delivered) 

US$3-5/kg 

90


Australia 

Australia‟s hydrogen and fuel cells programs are promoted by the Department of 

Resources, Energy and Tourism (RET), the Australian Central and Regional 

Governments and by private partners. However the country does not possess a 

dedicated platform for the coordination of national RD&D activities. In 2008 RET 

published the Hydrogen Technology Roadmap for Australia, a vision on the future role of 

hydrogen and fuel cells in helping Australia‟s reduction of Green House Gases 

emissions. The document was developed for the Council of Australian Governments 

(COAG) and had the scope to identify the potential role of the Australian Governments, 

industries and research centres in developing a hydrogen economy. The roadmap is 

intended to be a “vision” and does not identify precise milestones or targets. 

In 2004 the Australian Government, the National Heritage Trust‟s Air Pollution 

programme, the Australian Greenhouse Trust, the Government of West Australia and 

various private partners supported the demonstration of three FCB in Perth (project 

known as EcoBus, initial budget of AUD$5 million from the public authorities) as the flag 

of the Sustainable Transport Energy for Perth (STEP) project. The demonstration was 

successfully extended to three years of duration in collaboration with CUTE, becoming a 

member of HyFLEET:CUTE. The EcoBus– HyFLEET:CUTE project has been the first 

and, so far, the sole public demonstration of FCB for transit services in Australia [RET, 

2008] [GWA, 2010]. 

Brazil 

Brazil‟s government launched the Brazilian Fuel Cell Program in 2004, administrated by 

the Ministry of Science and Technology (Ministerio de Ciencia e Tecnologia, MCT). The 

Brazilian Action Plan for the Hydrogen Economy (Plano de Ação de Ciência, Tecnologia 

e Inovação para a Economia do Hidrogênio) is currently run by the MCT under the 

national programme for Electric Energy, Hydrogen and Renewable Energy [MCT, 2010]. 

Brazil is currently experiencing its first FCB demonstration project under the United 

Nation Development Programme‟s Global Environment Facility (UNDP-GEF) Fuel Cell 

Bus Programme, a US$21 million budget project with the scope to operate 8 24 FCBs in 

the metropolitan area of São Paulo. The buses are co-founded by the UNDP-GEF, the 

Brazilian Ministry of Mines and Energy (GoB), the Empresa Metropolitana de 

Transportes Urbanos de São Paulo (EMTU/SP) and by private partners [UNDP, 2010]. 

24 According to a private communication, only 4 buses out 8 initially programmed will be 

constructed by 2012. 

91


China 

The Chinese government initiated R&D activities on hydrogen in fuel cells in the 1970‟s, 

although a precise Chinese road map for hydrogen and fuel cell technologies was 

shaped only from late 1990‟s. Since then, hydrogen and Fuel Cells RD&D activities are 

coordinated by the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST), receiving increasing 

attentions and funds. During the 10 th Five Year Plan for economic development (2001- 

2005), the MOST dedicated 40% of the energy research programme budget for 

hydrogen, fuel cells and electric vehicles RD&Ds. As a consequence some 60 Chinese 

research centres and firms were working on hydrogen and fuel cells RD&Ds in 2005. In 

occasion of the current 11 th Five Year Plan (2006-2010), the MOST gave a clear priority 

to the development of alternative transport technology in urban areas, planning 100 FC 

vehicles in forthcoming demonstration projects and aiming to commercialise ~1,000 fuel 

cell vehicles by 2020. 

Figure 37 China's most active firms and research centres in hydrogen and fuel cell 

RD&D programmes. Chinese RD&D demonstrations are promoted by two major 

channels: MOST‟s Five-year Plans (top) and the UNDP-GEF programme (left). 

Chinese FCB demonstration projects started in 2001 with the 10 th Five Year Plan, with 

China‟s first public demonstration of a (shuttle) bus prototype (Tsinghua University, 

Beijing). From 2002, the MOST collaboration with local governments (Beijing and 

Shanghai) and with international authorities produced a number of FCB projects, notably 

the phase I UNDP-GEF three-bus demonstration in Beijing (started in 2005 and then 

92


extended through the partnership with the HyFLEET:CUTE) and the recent deployment 

of three buses for the Beijing Olympic Games (2008). The UNDP-GEF II phase will 

introduce up to 6 new buses in Shanghai from 2010, for a two years demonstration. 

Beijing has permanent hydrogen refuelling station operative from 2006, whilst Shanghai 

is developing its own by 2010. The collaboration with international projects is intended 

by the MOST as additional to the domestic demonstration programmes [CFCB, 2010] 

[IDRC, 2008][UNU-MERIT, 2006]. The Tsinghua University and the Nanyang 

Technological University (Singapore) recently unveiled a new hybrid fuel cell bus, jointly 

developed by the two universities. The bus will provide shuttle services in occasion to 

the Youth Olympics in Singapore. Finally, the Clean Energy Automotive Engineering 

Centre (CEAEC) of Tongji University announced 50 fuel cell buses in shuttle service in 

occasion of 2010 Asian Games and Asian Para Games in Guangzhou City [FCW, 2010]. 

Japan 

Japan is one of the world leaders in hydrogen and fuel cell research and development 

activities, having an extensive national research program (mainly focused on basic 

research). The Japanese program involves a large number of authorities and research 

centres in an extensive network of RD&D activities. Figure 38, below, reports the 

structure of the national program for fuel cell vehicle, a ~ $250 million/year program 

throughout 2004-2007. The Japan Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Demonstration project 

(JHFC) is responsible for vehicles‟ technology test and demonstration with the ultimate 

scope to facilitate their commercialisation. The JHFC was initiated in 2002 by the 

Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) in collaboration with public authorities 

and private firms (international and Japanese), and is organised in two coordinated 

branches: 

a) Fuel Cell Vehicle Demonstration Study; 

b) Hydrogen Infrastructure Demonstration Study. 

In JHFC‟s phase I (FY 2002-2005), the project‟s objectives were focused on vehicle and 

hydrogen production & dispensing efficiencies. In the current phase II (2006-2010), the 

project‟s objectives are focused on data collection, public awareness and identification of 

actual use conditions. JHFC aims to mature a comprehensive knowledge on vehicle 

performances, production & distribution characteristics and environmental impacts to 

help develop a Japanese roadmap for mass-scale commercialisation. From 2009 the 

JHFC has been subsided by the New Energy and Industrial Technology Development 

Organization (NEDO). The Japan‟ two FCB demonstrations have been promoted under 

the JHFC programme (Toyota/Hino, a total of 8 buses). 

93


Japanese targets on vehicle FC techno-economic performances can be identified in the 

NEDO‟s targets, summarised in Table 17, below. 

Table 17 JHFC‟s key targets to achieve hydrogen-fuelled FC vehicle mass-scale 

production by 2020-2030 


durability 

JHFC >60% 

>5,000 

hours 


Economy 

NA NA 

FC cost 


for Hydrogen and Fuel Cells (whose objective is the validation, demonstration, and 

commercialization of the technology) and the Hydrogen Energy R&D Centre (whose 

scope is to promote the development of hydrogen production and storage technologies). 

Both organizations are sponsored by the Ministry of Education, Science, and 

Technology (MEST) and the Ministry of Knowledge Economy (MKE), and promote 

demonstrations through strategic public-private partnerships with key industrial partners 

(mainly Korean firms). 

South Korea has ambitious targets in moving toward a hydrogen economy, planning the 

commercialisation of 50,000 fuel cell vehicles by 2020. Short-term targets plan 10 

hydrogen refuelling stations and 20 FCBs by 2012 (IPHE 2010 workshop data). So far, 

the National RD&D Organization for Hydrogen and Fuel Cells opened 8 hydrogen 

refuelling stations 26 in major Korean cities and ran several Fuel cell vehicle 

demonstrations. In this framework, Hyundai-KIA Motors ran the first Korean FCB 

demonstration (4 buses, from 2006 to present) [ERC, 2010][NREL, 2009][KEI, 2008]. 

Table 18 MKE‟s key fuel cell vehicle targets by 2015 


durability 

MKE NA 

5,000 

hours 


Economy 

NA 

Range of 

500km 

Stack 

cost 

US$ 

41/kW 


fuelling 

rate 


costs 

(delivered) 

NA NA 

United Nation Development Program – Green Environment Facilities 

The UNDP initiated an international Fuel Cell Bus programme in 2000 through the 

Environmentally Sustainable Transport programme of UNDP‟s Green Environment 

Facility project. The FCB programme had the scope to support commercial 

demonstration of FCB and hydrogen facilities in the largest markets of the developing 

world: Brazil (Sao Paulo), China (Beijing), Egypt (Cairo), India (New Delhi) and Mexico 

(Mexico City). The project was ultimately realised only in Brazil (still in progress) and in 

China (phase I completed; phase II in progress in Shanghai). The UNDP-GEF 

programme is an international partnership co-funded by national governments, the 

UNDP, local and international industry firms [UNDP, 2010]. 

dedicated for the Domestic Validation Program (80 FC cars, 5 industry partners) throughout 

2009 – 2011, and up to US$77 million for the second phase of Domestic Fleet Demonstration 

(>2,000 vehicles throughout 2009 – 2015). 

26 According to Hyundai’s presentation held at IPHE Hydrogen Infrastructure Workshop held in 

February 2010, there are 8 refuelling stations currently in operation and 12 by 2011. 

95


Annex B: Hydrogen refuelling stations for bus applications – 

four case studies 

The hydrogen refuelling station in Hürth, Cologne 

Location: Hürth / Cologne / Germany 

Timeline: In service mid-2010 

Project Summary: One small refuelling station (dispensing capacity of 100kgH2/day) 

based on trucked-in gaseous hydrogen for the refuelling of two 18m articulated hybrid 

fuel cell buses 

Project Manager: HyCologne ( www.hycologne.de ) 

Project Partners: Air Products, City of Hürth, German Federal State, region of North 

Rhine-Westphalia, Praxair 

Refuelling Station Specifications: 

Refuelling station capital 

cost 

~ € 1.3 millions (overhead costs included) 

Capacity 100 kgH2/day (upgradable to 300 kgH2/day) 

Hydrogen purchase price 

(note that this excludes 

the capital and 

operational cost of the 

fuelling station) 

Hydrogen source 

Approx. € 1.6/kg) if delivered through pipeline; approx. 

€5.5/kg if delivered through tube-trailer. 

By-product from the local chemical industry (from 

chloride electrolysis). The hydrogen is trucked-in in 

gaseous phase at 200bar. 

Refuelling concept 350bar cascade refuelling – no precooling 

On-site storage design The on-site storage system uses two storage pressures, 

150bar and 400bar, and one compressor (GreenField, 

20kgH2/hour of peak capacity, air cooled). The compressor 

is designed to operate from hydrogen pressures as low as 

8bar. 

96


Refuelling time Peak performance: 90gH2/second – 350bar only 

Location and footprint 

Safety distances 

Distance from bus depot 2.5km 

Discussion: 

Expected refuelling time: ~ 9 minutes / bus (40kg of onboard 

hydrogen capacity) for two buses in sequence 

Location: Industrial / chemical area. 

Footprint: 200 m 2 

Large fire walls used to minimise hazardous zones – 

30cm thick concrete walls, 3.6m high required. 

The refuelling station will start its activity with 100kgH2/day capacity and 350bar 

refuelling, being sized for refuelling two buses. The refuelling station can be easily 

upgraded to higher dispensing capacities (up to 300kgH2/day if required) as it is 

designed to accommodate extra on-site storage capacity. In addition, the existing 

compressor and IT management system can manage up to 6 dispenser units at either 

350bar or 700bar - this latter option could be used to accommodate car refuelling in the 

same infrastructure. 

97


Figure 39 The hydrogen refuelling station in Hürth, Cologne. On the left side of the 

picture there is the dispensing unit (one dispenser for 350bar refuelling). In the 

background there are the compressor unit (enclosed in a container, left side) and the low 

pressure (150bar) storage tanks. The gaseous hydrogen is currently delivered to the 

refuelling station by tube trailers, which are connected to the system behind the yellow 

concrete wall. 

The low capital cost of the refuelling station is a consequence of its simple design, 

possible thanks to the local availability of hydrogen as a by-product from the chemical 

industry. The hydrogen is currently trucked-in in gaseous form at 200bar, but the 

refuelling station could be easily retrofitted to accommodate a hydrogen pipeline directly 

connected with the production plant (some 450m away). 

Figure 40, below, captures the benefits coming from the simple refuelling station design 

and cheap hydrogen price in terms of hydrogen price at the pump. The model considers 

three dispensing capacities (100kgH2/day, 200kgH2/day and 300kgH2/day), a discount 

period of ten years, a discount rate of 3.5% and a yearly maintenance fee equivalent to 

the 3% of the capital cost of the refuelling station. The hydrogen is assumed to be 

delivered through a short pipeline, whose cost is also included, and by tube-trailer. 

Finally, the figures include the extra capital cost for additional on-site storage capacity 

for dispensing capacities over 100kg/day, quantified as ~ 25% of the initial capital cost of 

the infrastructure. 

98


€ / kg 

€12 

€11 

€10 

€9 

€8 

€7 

€6 

€5 

€4 

€3 

€2 

€1 

€0 

Hydrogen fuel price at the pump versus dispensing volume 

( 10 year contract, delivered gaseous hydrogen ) 



€ 0.58/ litre) 

100 kg/day 200 kg/day 300 kg/day 

Hydrogen price contribution 

Pipeline cost contribution 

Refueling station cost contribution 

Assumptions: 

Refueling station cost: € 1.3million (100kg/day); 

€1.6million (200 and 300kg/day) 

Hydrogen purchase price: 

€1 .6/kg (piped), €5.5/kg (trucked-in) 

Station maintenance fee: €40,000/year 


Discount period: 10 years 

Pipeline cost: €800,000 (450m) 

Figure 40 Projections on the hydrogen fuel price at the pump as for the refuelling station 

in Cologne. The figures exclude the cost for operating the refuelling station (notably the 

electricity sourced by the compressor). Figures assume 356 days of utilisation per year. 

Figure 40 suggests that the hydrogen price at the pump is likely to be higher than the 

taxed diesel price (on a calorific equivalence basis), for the maximum dispensing 

capacity of the refuelling station (300kgH2/day). That same analysis, however, suggests 

that price parity can be achieved for dispensing capacities of 400 - 500kgH2/day, 

assuming little change in the refuelling station capital cost and same pipeline. 

99


The hydrogen refuelling station project in Leyton, London 

Location: Leyton / London / UK 

Timeline: In service by late 2010 

Project Summary: One medium/small refuelling station (dispensing capacity of 

320kgH2/day) based on trucked-in liquid hydrogen for the refuelling of up to 8 hybrid fuel 

cell buses. 

Project Manager: Transport for London (TfL) (http://www.tfl.gov.uk/) 

Project Partners: Air Products, City of London, FCH – JTI, First Group 



cost 

Capacity 320kgH2/day (upgradable) 

Hydrogen purchase price Confidential 


Approx. € 3 million 27 (including all logistics costs and 

staff training) 

Steam methane reforming from Air Product‟s production 

plant in Rotterdam (the Netherland, some 470km away 

from London). The hydrogen is liquefied and trucked to 

the refuelling station through a special tanker – Hydra 

Refuelling concept Cascade refuelling – no precooling 

On-site storage design 

The storage system is directly provided by the Hydra 

tanker itself. The Hydra tanker stores up to 3.5 tonnes of 

hydrogen in liquid form and dispense it in gaseous phase 

at pressures up to 440bar through an integrated vaporiser 

and compressor. The tanker will be parked in the 

refuelling area and connected to two dispensers. Once 

empty, it will be simply replaced by a full tanker. 

Refuelling time Expected refuelling time: 10 minutes / bus (30kg of onboard 

hydrogen capacity) for 8 buses in sequence within 

a refuelling windows of 4 hours 

Location and footprint The refuelling site is located within an existing bus depot 

27 Source: www.thehydrogenjournal.com 

100



Footprint: < 400 m 2 

Standard safety requirements for liquid H2 (EIGA 

requirements). A safety distance of 20m from occupied 

buildings is maintained. 

Distance from bus depot The refuelling facility is within the bus depot 

Discussion: 

The refuelling station consists of the Hydra tanker itself, high pressure hydrogen storage 

tanks and two dispenser units. The daily capacity can be easily upgraded as the Hydra 

tanker designed to store up to 3.5 tonnes of hydrogen; this is enough fuel for over 100 

buses per day. If more hydrogen were required, additional-site liquid hydrogen could 

also be added. 

Additional expansion would require additional on-site equipment, notably additional high 

pressure hydrogen storage. Figure 41, below, provides an overview of the refuelling site 

(in the background) and the maintenance depot (foreground). 

Hydra tanker Refuelling area 

Figure 41 Computer graphic of the refuelling site in London (in the background), and the 

alongside bus maintenance depot. Courtesy of Transport for London (TfL) 

The hydrogen fuel will be produced in the Netherlands by steam methane reforming and 

trucked to the refuelling area by road and ferry. It is worth noting, however, that the 

contract with the hydrogen supplier includes provision to source hydrogen from more 

101


environmental friendly sources in future. 

Figure 42, below, captures the economics of the refuelling station in terms of final 

hydrogen price at the pump, considering a discount period of ten years, a discount rate 

of 3.5% and three different prices for the liquid hydrogen (€1/kgH2, €3/kgH2, €6/kgH2). 

The figures refer to two dispensing capacities, 320kgH2/day and 1,000kgH2/day. In this 

higher capacity case it is estimated that a refuelling station has a capital cost 25% 

higher, due to extra equipment. 

€ / kg-H2 

€11 

€10 

€9 

€8 

€7 

€6 

€5 

€4 

€3 

€2 

€1 

€0 

Hydrogen fuel price at the pump versus liquid hydrogen price 

and dispensing capacity ( delivered liquid hydrogen) 

Liquid hydrogen 

price €6/kg 


price €3/kg 


price €1/kg 

320kg/day 

1,000 kg/day 



€ 0.58/ litre) 

Assumptions: 



Dispensing capacity 320kg/day: 

Refueling station capital cost: € 3million 


Dispensing capacity 1,000kg/day: 

Refueling station capital cost: € 3.7million 


Figure 42 Estimation of the hydrogen fuel price at the pump for the refuelling station in 

Leyton, London. The figures refer to three different purchase prices of the liquid 

hydrogen and two dispensing capacities. 

Figure 42 suggests that for dispensing capacity of 320kgH2/day the hydrogen fuel price is 

likely to be higher than the average taxed diesel price in the European market, even for 

low liquid hydrogen prices. In this latter case the major cost component is the capital 

cost of the refuelling station itself. 

The figure also suggest that the price at the pump can be substantially lowered moving 

toward larger dispensing capacities, to the point that it is possible to reach a cost parity 

with the taxed diesel price for a dispensing capacity close to 1,000kgH2/day and a liquid 

hydrogen price close to €1/ kgH2 (break-even at 850kgH2/day and €2/ kgH2). 

102


The hydrogen refuelling station project in HafenCity, Hamburg 

Location: HafenCity / Hamburg / Germany 

Timeline: First trial expected in August 2011 

Project Summary: One large refuelling station (capacity of 750kgH2 /day) based on onsite 

hydrogen production (from electrolysis) and trucked-in gaseous hydrogen for the 

refuelling of ten 12m hybrid fuel cell buses (plus a number of fuel cell cars) (beginning 

2013 twenty fuel cell buses shall be refuelled). 

Project Manager: Vattenfall Europe Innovation GmbH (www.vattenfall.de) 

Project Partners: Shell 

Associated Partners: Hamburger Hochbahn, CEP, City of Hamburg, Daimler, German 

Federal State 

Contractors H2-Hardware: Linde 

Subcontractor Electrolysis: Hydrogenics 



cost 

Capacity 750kgH2/day 

Hydrogen purchase price 


Refuelling concept Cascade refuelling 

~ € 7.5 million (all investment costs included) 

For trucked-in hydrogen only – hydrogen supplier still to 

be defined 

Price at the pump will be CEP-Price - around 8 €/kg 

50% of the hydrogen required by the refuelling station will 

be trucked-in in gaseous phase (overnight) whilst the 

remaining will be produced on-site through electrolysis. 

There will be initially two Hydrogenics‟ HySTAT-60 

alkaline electrolysers (hydrogen production capacity of up 

to 60 Nm 3 /hour at 10bar of output pressure) with the 

possibility to add an extra unit by 2013. The electrolysers 

will be powered exclusively with renewable energy. 

103



The site will be equipped with two ionic compressors, one 

being used for redundancy or for matching peak demand. 

The storage system is composed of two hydrogen middle 

pressure storage tanks at 50bar (of 50m 3 each) and 120 

bottles (nominal volume of 50 litres) at 830bar, in order to 

perform both 350bar and 700bar refuelling. The system is 

designed to store up to 720kg of hydrogen. 

Refuelling time Expected refuelling time: 60 - 80gH2/second at 350bar 

(peak: 120 gH2/second for buses) and 5 kgH2/3 minutes at 

700bar (SAE). 

Location and footprint Location: rural mixed area – close to a water channel, 

bridge, roads and office buildings. Footprint: 700 m 2 

Safety distances The location of the refuelling station allows to maintain a 

safety distance from hazards in compliance with the 

German regulations 

Distance from bus depot ~ 15km (indicative distance between the bus depot in 

Hamburg Hummelsbüttel and HafenCity) 

Discussion: 

The refuelling station will be the second hydrogen station in the city of Hamburg. The 

refuelling station has been designed for bus and car demonstrations and includes two 

separate dispenser units for performing 350bar and 700bar refuelling simultaneously. 

The station will be suitable for 24/7 unmanned refuelling operations. The station has little 

room for extra on-site storage, being placed alongside a river and two bridges. The 

facility, however, has been designed to accommodate an extra electrolyser if required. 

104


Figure 43 Computer graphic of the refuelling station in HafenCity, Hamburg. Source: 

Clean Energy Partnership website 

The refuelling station is a demonstration prototype within the city of Hamburg, which 

aims to demonstrate the concept and the viability of green on-site hydrogen production. 

This justifies the high capital cost of the project. It is worth noting that the concept design 

will be not promoted in other demonstrations. 

Figure 44, below, summarises the economics of the refuelling station in terms of the 

hydrogen price at the pump, considering a fixed dispensing capacity (750kgH2/day), a 

discount period of ten years, the capita cost of this (demonstration) site, a discount rate 

of 3.5%, a yearly maintenance fee equivalent to the 3% of the capital cost of the 

refuelling station and: 

50% of the hydrogen being produced from electrolysis – assuming three different 

prices for the sourced electricity (€0.05/kWh, €0.2/kWh, €0.3/kWh) 

50% of the hydrogen being trucked-in at, for example, €4/kgH2 

105


€18 

€16 

€14 

€12 

€10 

€8 

€6 

€4 

€2 

€0 

Hydrogen fuel price at the pump versus three elctricity prices 

( 50% electrolysis, 50% trucked-in gaseous hydrogen ) 

Electricity price: 

€0.05/kWh 


€0.2/kWh 


€0.30/kWh 

Refuelling station maintenance cost 

Refuelling station financing cost 

Cost for the hydrogen (50% delivered 

and 50% produced from electrolysis) 



€ 0.58/ litre) 

Assumptions: 

Refueling station capital cost: € 7.5million, 

Hydrogen purchase price: €4/kg 




The figures assume two electrolysers 

with a capital cost of €300,000 each. 

The conversion efficiency of the process , 

including gas continioning and compression, 

is assumed close to 65kWh/kg H2 

Figure 44 Estimation of the hydrogen fuel price at the pump for the refuelling station in 

HafenCity, Hamburg. The figures refer to three different electricity prices. The cost of the 

hydrogen is the arithmetic average between the hydrogen purchase price and the 

production cost from electrolysis. 

Figure 44 suggests that the hydrogen fuel price at the pump is likely to be at least three 

times higher than the average taxed diesel price in the European market, even 

assuming subsidised electricity prices (e.g. as low as €0.05/kWh). This result is 

influenced by the high capital cost of the refuelling station and, most notably, by the cost 

of the hydrogen itself, i.e. excluding financing and maintenance costs. This latter is the 

key cost component and is influenced by the poor economic performance of the 

electrolysers. 

There is, however, scope for substantial cost reductions for these kind of refuelling 

station designs over time. Particularly as the constrained location and prototype nature 

of this project have increased costs significantly. 

106


The hydrogen refuelling station project in Whistler, British Columbia 

Location: Whistler / British Columbia / Canada 

Timeline: In service since November 2009 

Project Summary: One large refuelling station (dispensing capacity of 

1,000kgH2/day) based on trucked-in liquid hydrogen for the refuelling of twenty 12m 

hybrid fuel cell buses 

Project Manager: BC Transit (www.transitbc.com) 

Project Partners: Air Liquide Canada, Government of British Columbia, Canada‟s 

Public Transit Capital Trust, Government of Canada 



cost 

Capacity 1,000 kgH2/day 

Hydrogen purchase 

price 


Refuelling concept Cascade refuelling 


Confidential. BC Transit awarded in December 2007 

CAD $20 million contract (approx. €14 million) to Air 

Liquide Canada for the construction of the refuelling 

station in Whistler, a small mobile refueler and the 

provision of hydrogen for refuelling twenty buses for five 

years 

Confidential. The hydrogen purchase price was 

negotiated by BC Transit and Air Liquide as part of the 

5-year liquid hydrogen supply contract 

The hydrogen is produced from electrolysis (powered by 

hydroelectricity), liquefied and trucked-in in liquid phase 

on weekly basis from Bécancour, Quebec (some 

5,000km away from Whistler) 

The on-site storage system is characterised by two 

storage tanks, which can store up to 10 tonnes of 

hydrogen in liquid phase, and the necessary equipment 

for refuelling from liquid hydrogen (hydrogen 

compressor, vaporisers, etc. – see Error! Reference 

source not found., below). The refuelling station is 

designed to ensure 99% availability 24/7 

107



Location and footprint 


Refuelling time: ~ 10 minutes / bus at 350bar (45kg of 

on-board hydrogen capacity) for up to eighteen buses in 

sequence 

Location: rural area, within a „Transit Centre‟ (which 

includes sheltered stalls for up to 50 buses, a 6-bay 

maintenance depot, an automatic bus wash, a diesel 

refuelling station and operational building). Footprint: 

700m 2 

The location of the refuelling station allows to maintain 

safety distances from hazards in compliance with the 

Canadian regulations 

Distance from bus depot The bus depot is located alongside the refuelling site 

Discussion: 

The refuelling station in Whistler is the world largest hydrogen refuelling station, being 

able to dispense up to 1,000 tonnes of hydrogen per day. The refuelling station has 

been designed to ensure 99% availability and 24/7 operation, having redundant 

equipment and up to 10 tonnes of hydrogen stored on-site in liquid form. In addition, 

the station can be remotely controlled from Vancouver (some 130km away). Figure 

45, below, illustrates the small footprint of the refuelling station, which is one of the 

main advantages of liquid hydrogen fuelling. 

108


Entrance for bus refuelling 

Figure 45 The refuelling station in Whistler, British Columbia. The station is located 

within a „Transit Centre‟, which includes the bus depot and other functional buildings. 

On the right side of the figure there are the two hydrogen storage tanks, which 

cumulative storage capacity is up to 10 tonnes of hydrogen in liquid form. Picture 

source: http://www.thehydrogenjournal.com 

The refuelling process has demonstrated excellent availability to date: over 1,300 

refuelling had been performed by April 2010, delivering some 33 tonnes of hydrogen. 

The station is provided with one dispenser for 350bar refuelling only, being 

commissioned to support the hydrogen bus demonstration in Whistler. 

109


Annex C: International Demonstrations 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

# 

Country 

USA - 

California 

USA - 

California 

USA - 

California 

USA - 

Connecticut 

Canada - 

Whistler 

Europe – 

Amsterdam, 

Barcelona, 

Hamburg, 

London, 

Luxembourg, 

Madrid, 

Porto, 

Stockholm 

and Stuttgart 

Amsterdam, 

Barcelona, 

Beijing, Berlin, 

Hamburg, 

London, 

Luxembourg, 

buses 

(demo 

period) 

3 (2005- 

2007) 

3 (2006present) 



20 (2010- 

2014) 

27; 3 in 

each city 

(2003- 

2006) 

33; 3 in 

each city, 6 

in Hamburg 

(2006- 

2009) 

Project 

/ Bus 

Op. 

Santa Clara 

VTA 

AC Transit 

Sun Line 

Transit 

CT Transit 

BC Transit 

CUTE 

HyFLEET: 

CUTE 

(CUTE 

extension) 

Principal Industrial 

Stakeholders 

BUS HP&D 

Gillig, 

Ballard 

Van Hool, 

UTC Power, 

ISE 

Van Hool, 

UTC Power, 

ISE 

Van Hool, 

UTC Power, 

ISE 

New Flyer, 

Ballard 

Daimler, 

Ballard 

Daimler, 

Ballard 

Budget 

Air Product $18.5m 

AC Transit, 

Chevron 

Sun Line 

Transit 

>$21m 

NA 

UTC Power NA 

Air Liquide, 


Air Liquide, 

Shell, BP, 

StatHydro, 

Repsol, Linde, 

Vattenfall, 


Air Liquide, 

Shell, BP, 

Statoil Hydro, 

Repsol, Total, 

Linde, 

Vattenfal, 

CAN $89m 

(initial 

budget) 

EC’s 5 th 

FP: 

€18.5m 

PP&LA: 

€60.3m 

Tot: €78.8 

m 

EC’s 6 th 

FP: €19m 

PP&LA: 

€24m 

Tot: €43m 

Funding 

Authorities 

BAAQMD, CEC, 

DOE/FTA, VTA 

Santa Clara, 

Sam Trans, 

Private Partners 

State of 

California, 

CARB, 

BAAQMD, FTA, 

CEC, DOE, 

CalSTART, AC 

Transit, Private 

Partners 

FTA, AQMD, 

CARB, Sun Line, 


FTA, ConnDOT, 

GHTD, Private 

Partners 

BC province, BC 

Transit and 

Canada’s Public 

Transit Capital 

Trusts 

EC, Private 

Partners and 

Local 

Authorities 

EC, Private 

Partners and 

Local 

Authorities 

110


8 

9 

10 

11 

Madrid, 

Perth, 

Reykjavik 

Europe – 

Bottrop, 

Herten, Soria 

Belgium, 

Antwerp 

Czech 

Republic - 

Neratovice 

Germany - 

Köln Bonn 

Airport 

12 Germany- 

Dusseldorf 

13 Germany – 

Barth 

14 Germany – 

Hamburg 

Hospital 

15 Germany - 

Gladbeck 

16 

Germany – 

Hamburg 

17 Italy – 

Rome 

18 Spain – 

Expo Zaragoza 

19 

Australia 

20 Brazil – 

Sao Paulo 

3 (2005- 

2011) 



1 (2004- 

2007) 

2 (2007 – 

present) 


1 (2009 – 

present) 

1 (2010 – 

present) 


1 (2007 - 

present) 

3 (2008 - 

present) 

3 (2004- 

2006) 

4 (in two 

phases) 

HyChain 

Minitrans 

De Liin 

TriHyBus 


And 


Network 

NRW 

Rheinbahn 

Technobus, 


Van Hool, 

UTC power 

IVECO, 

Skoda 

Electric, 

Proton 

Motors 

Tecnobus, 


Tecnobus, 



Air Liquide, 

Air Liquide NA 

Linde NA 

NA NA 

Entire 

project 

(not only 

bus 

segment): 

EC’s 6 th 

FP: €17m 

Tot (Exp.): 

€37.6 m 

NA NA NA 

Ostseebus Hydrogenics NA NA NA 

HyFLEET: 

CUTE 

1 year 

extension 

ATAC 

Expo 

Zaragoza 

STEP - 

EcoBus 

UNDP-GEF 

- Brazil 

Tecnobus, 


Rampini 

ZEV, 


Daimler, 

Ballard 

Tecnobus, 


Tecnobus, 


Daimler, 

Ballard 

Marcopolo, 

Ballard 

NA NA NA 

NA NA NA 

BP, Vattenfal NA 

NA NA NA 

NA NA NA 

BP, BOC 


> AUD $ 

17m 

UNDP: 

$12.2m 

EC, Private 

Partners and 

Local 

Authorities 

UTC Power, De 

Lijn, Van Hool 

EC, Private 

Partners and 

Local 

Authorities 

State of North 

Rhine 

Westphalia, EC 

EC, Private 

Partners and 

Local 

Authorities 

Australian 

National and 

Local 

Authorities, 


UNDP-GEF, 


111


21 

China - 

Beijing 

22 China - 

Beijing 

23 Japan – 

various 

location 

24 Japan – 

Central Japan 

International 

air Airport 

25 

# 

26 

27 

28 

29 

South Korea - 

Seoul 

Country 

USA- 

San Francisco 

Bay Area 

USA – 

California 

USA – 

Georgia and 

South Carolina 

USA – 

Connecticut 

3 (2005- 

2006) 

3 (2008present?) 

8 (2002- 

2006) 

1? from 

phase I 

(2006present) 

4 ( 2006present) 

Buses 

(planne 

d demo 

start) 

12 (2010- 

2011) 

1 (2010- 

2011) 

1 (2010- 

2011) 

4 (2010- 

2011) 

UNDP-GEF 

– China 

Phase I 

2008 

Olympic 

Games 

JHFC 

phase I 

JHFC 

phase II 

National 

RD&D 

Organizati 

on for 


and Fuel 

Cells 

Project 

/ Bus 

Op. 

ZAE Area 

group 

FTA- 

NFCBP, 

CalSTART 

FTA- 

NFCBP, CTE 

FTA- 

NFCBP, 

NAVC 

(nutmeg 

Daimler, 

Ballard 

Shen-LI High 

Tech 

Hino, 

Toyota 

Hino, 

Toyota 

Hyundai 

BP, 

SinoHytech 

BP, Sinohytec, 

Air Products 

PP&LA: 

$8.906m 

Tot: 

$21.18m 

US 

$12.75m 

NA 

JHFC partners NA 

JHFC partners NA 

Program 

partners 

(Hyundai, 

Kogas) 

Principal Industrial 

Stakeholders 

BUS HP&D 

Van Hool, UTC Linde 

New Flyer, 

UTC 

Proterra, 


US $49m 

Budget 

$50-$56m 

(initial 

budget) 

and Local 

Authorities 

UNDP-GEF, 


and Local 

Authorities 

MOST and Local 

Authorities 

JHFC, Private 

Partners 

JHFC, Private 

Partners 

National RD&D 

Organization for 

Hydrogen and 

Fuel Cells and 


Funding 

Authoritie 

s 

MTC, 

BAAQMD, 

CARB, FTA, 

ZEB Area 

transit 

members 

NA NA FTA, CalSTART 

NA > $ 10m FTA, CTE 

Van Hool, UTC NA $16.71m FTA, NAVC 

112


30 

31 

32 

USA - 

New York 

USA – 

North West 

USA – 

Logan Airport 

33 USA - 

City of Burbank 

34 USA – 

California 

35 USA – 

California 

36 Netherland- 

City of 

Amsterdam 

37 Regional 

Verkehr Köln 

(RVK) 

38 

Germany - 

Hamburg 

39 Europe – 

Aargau/St. 

Gallen, 

Bolzano, 

London, Milan, 

2 (2010- 

2011) 

1 (2010- 

2011) 

1 (2010- 

2011) 

1 (2010- 

2011) 

1 (from 

2010) 

1 ( from 

2011) 

2 (2010- 

2011) 

2 (2010- 

2011) 

10 (fall 

2010) 

26 (2010- 

2016) 

project) 

FTA- 

NFCBP, 

NAVC, NY 

Power 

Authority 

FTA- 

NFCBP, 

NAVC 

(Lightweigh 

t battery 

dominant 

project) 

FTA- 

NFCBP, 

NAVC 

(MBTA 

Logan 

Airport 

project) 

CARB 

Sun Line 

Transit 

Sun Line 

Transit 

New Flyer, 

Ballard 

Hydrogenics, 

GE 

NY Power 

Authority 

$12.44m FTA, NAVC 

NA $ 13.39m FTA, NAVC 

Nuvera Nuvera $ 9.75m FTA, NAVC 

Proterra, 


New Flyer, 

Ballard, ISE 

Thor, Ballard, 

BAE 

NA $1.7m CARB 

NA NA 

NA NA FTA? 

GVB APTS, Ballard Linde, Shell NA 

RVK APTS, Ballard 

Hamburger 

Hochbahn 

CHIC 

Daimler 

Daimler, Van 

Hool, Wright 

Bus, Ballard 

HyCologne 

partners 

Vattenfall, 

Linde (plus 

other CEP 

stations?) 

Air Product, 

Air Liquide, 

Linde, Shell, 

Total, 

Vattenfall 

NA 

NA 

NA 

funding from 

CARB, AQMD, 

and FTA ?? 

City of 

Amsterdam, 

Dutch Gov. 

RVK, 

HyCologne 

CEP , EC and 

Local 

Authorities 

EC, Local 

Authorities, 

Private 

Partners 

113


40 

41 

42 

Oslo, 

China - 

Shanghai 

South Korea 

China - 

Guangzhou City 

Up to 6 

(World 

Expo 2010) 

NA (2010- 

2011) 

50 buses in 

shuttle 

service (fall 

2010) 

UNDP-GEF 

phase II 

Hyundai II 

generation 

buses 

2010 Asian 

Games and 

Asian Para 

Games 

SAIC, (Shen- 

Li?) 

Hyundai-KIA 

Motors 

Clean Energy 

Automotive 

Engineering 

Centre 

(CEAEC) of 

Tongji 

University 

NA 

Program 

partners 

(Hyundai, 

Kogas) plus 

Air Liquide 

Air 

Products 

UNDP-GEF: 

$5.963m 

Tot: 

$18.625m 

Under 

Negotiation 

NA 

UNDP-GEF, 

MOST, Local 

Authorities, 

Private 

Partners 

National 

RD&D 

Organization 

for Hydrogen 

and Fuel Cells, 

Private 

Partners 

Tongji 

University, 

Chinese 

Government 

114


Annex D: Interview Scripts for Fuel Cell Bus Stakeholders 

Consultation on Hydrogen-fuelled 

Fuel cell buses 

Project Acronym 

Purpose of this 

Document and 

subsequent 

Author 

Date 

NextHyLights overview 

NextHyLights 

The purpose of this document is to engage key stakeholders in an 

open consultation about costs and technical barriers for the 

further demonstration and subsequent commercialisation of fuel 

cell buses across Europe. 

Stakeholders‟ responses will be used to develop feasibility studies 

for a large-scale demonstration program under European 

Commission‟s Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Technology 

Initiative (FCH JU). 

R. Zaetta, B. Madden (Element Energy) 

16 th April 2010 

NextHyLights is a project called for by the FCH JU, which will conduct feasibility studies 

into the next generation of hydrogen vehicle demonstration projects and the subsequent 

steps to commercialisation of those vehicles. The project started on 1 st January 2010 

and will run for one year. 

The strategic planning exercise will build on the results of work packages on different 

aspects of the hydrogen vehicles sector (passenger vehicles, buses and other vehicles). 

Each work package‟s objectives involve: 

115


A detailed assessment of the state-of-the-art, 

The execution of feasibility studies and 

The delivery of a coherent set of recommendations in a single plan for a practical 

rollout of large scale demonstration projects and subsequent precommercialisation 

support. 

The provision of up-to-date information from industries within the hydrogen transport 

sector is crucial to NextHyLights‟ success. 

Consultation Questions 

The following questions are intended as a script for bilateral interviews with a set of key 

stakeholders. We would be happy to receive a formal written response, but the main 

purpose of the document is simply to act as a guide for a bilateral discussion with the 

NextHyLights Bus Work Package leader (Element Energy). The Element Energy team 

will prepare notes and return these for comment. 

The questions are in two sections: 

A) Technology Development and Cost Structure 

B) Strategy for Effective Cost Reduction 

The information provided will be anonymized and (where possible) aggregated, with the 

purpose of identifying those industry trends relevant to shape a realistic strategy to 

match end-user needs with manufacturer capabilities. 

Accurate and comprehensive answers would allow an effective output for all 

stakeholders, from the political sector to the potential customers, resulting in a shared 

benefit. In particular, the more detailed the input from industry, the better the evidence 

base will be to justify supportive policies for hydrogen buses in future. 

We recognise the potential commercial difficulty associated with some of the questions 

and welcome feedback to improve their content. 

116


A) Technology Development and Cost Structure 

Table 1, below, summarise our understanding of the most recent performance of hybrid 

fuel cell buses currently available (2010-2011 orders). 

Table 19 Performance of currently available hybrid fuel cell buses (12m, Low 

Floor) 

Items Typical Values Comments 

Fuel Economy 8 – 15 kg/100km Including ACHV and 

Electrical Load 

Range 250 – 450 km Including ACHV and 

Electrical Load 

Availability 55% - 90% > 90% achieved in 

HyFLEET:CUTE 

Q1a 

Would you agree with the value showed in Table 1? Please provide estimates of how 

performance might evolve in the next 5 and 10 years. 

In general hybrid fuel cell buses have not consistently met industry expectations for 

availability. 

Q1b 

Would you agree with this statement? What are the main causes of these availability 

problems (battery, power electronics, stack?) and what is the likelihood of them being 

improved in future generations of FC buses? When are they likely to be resolved? 

So far fuel cell bus demonstrations have been based on 12 and 6 meters bus platforms 

and on a limited number of vehicles (the largest international demonstration to date, 

HYFLEET:CUTE, employed just 33 fuel cell buses). Ideally forthcoming demonstrations 

would be based on a larger variety of platforms and on a larger number of vehicles. 

117


Q1c 

Would you foresee the deployment of alternative bus platforms in the next 5 and 10 

years? For example: 

10m buses 

Articulated buses 

Double deck 

Which constraints/challenges would these platforms pose to fuel cell bus performance? 

We need to understand the dynamics of the market to better scope large demonstrations 

and early commercialisation activities. Currently the manufacturing capacity of certain 

bus manufacturers constrains the ability to scope roll outs (e.g., some manufacturers do 

not wish to deploy more than a finite number of buses in the next few years). 

Q1d 

Will the availability of fuel cell buses represent a constraint for large demonstration 

programmes in the next 2, 5 and 10 years? 

How do you expect overall manufacturing capacity for buses to evolve over the next 

decade? 

What is the process for increasing manufacturing capacity? Does this require a 

significant capital investment, or is it simply a case of using existing lines with minor 

modifications. What are the key factors which will influence a decision to ramp up 

production capacity and produce ‟commercial‟ hydrogen buses? 

Stakeholders‟ opinions on the foreseeable improvement of bus performance, lifetime 

and cost, are crucial for understanding the feasibility of large scale demonstrations and 

subsequent commercialisation across Europe. 

Figure 1, below, summarises our understanding of the historical capital cost of fuel cell 

buses between 2003 and 2010, together with three cost targets by 2015 for the purpose 

of comparison. These targets are described in Table 2, below. 

118


Table 20 Hydrogen Bus Alliance and Canadian targets on fuel cell buses capital 

cost 

Authority Capital cost target for fuel cell 

buses 

HBA upper: 

lower: 

US $ 1 million US 

$ 0.6 million 

Year 

2015 

Canada Industry US $ 0.85 million 2015 

Q1d 

Would you agree with the costs ranges showed in Figure 1? And with the costs targets 

showed in Table 2? 

What is the current (2010-2011 orders) cost range of fuel cell buses in your opinion? 

We can identify three major technologies currently in competition with fuel cell buses: 

Diesel, Diesel Hybrid and Electric buses. Table 3, below, summarises their cost range. 

119


Table 3 Cost range of Diesel, Diesel Hybrid and Electric buses 

Technology Cost 

Diesel $ 300,000 - $450,000 

Diesel Hybrid $ 500,000 - $700,000 

Electric > $ 1,000,000 (?) 

Q1e 

Would you agree with the costs ranges showed in Table 3? 

Diesel Hybrid and Electric buses are equipped with electric components similar to those 

mounted on fuel cell buses (e.g. electric drive trains, battery packs). A large scale rollout 

of these technologies could ease fuel cell commercialisation, helping to optimise the 

required control power electronics. 

Q1f 

Would you agree with this vision? 

We aim to provide evidence for foreseeable cost reductions for fuel cell buses in the 

coming years. One potential approach would analyse the buses‟ cost structure and 

identify possible breakthroughs in the components. 

We identify 10 main components in the fuel cell buses cost structure, as follows: 

Chassis, Body, Fuel Cell modules, Cooling System, Energy Storage 

systems, Hydrogen Storage Tanks, Control Power Electronics, Labour, 

Margin and Risk Premium 

 

Table 3, below, summarises our understanding of the costs associated with each of the 

components and its typical life (where possible). 

Table 21 Fuel Cell Bus cost break down for 2010-2011 orders 

Components Indicative Cost (US $) Life / Warranty Remarks 

Chassis and 

Body 

~ $ 200,000 – 300,000 / 

bus 

> 15 years life - 

120



System 

FC Cooling 

System 


System 


Storage System 

Power 

Electronics and 

Electric Motors 

~ $4,000 - 5,000/kW 

< 7 years 

warranty 

> 5,000h life 

12,000h 

warranty 

~ $ 20,000/ bus 5 years - 

~ $ 1,000 – 1,700/kWh 

Ultra capacitor: extra ~ 

$20,000 / bus for a > 

100kW system 

~ $ 1,800 – 3,000/kg 

Lower bound cost may 

not include additional 

items such as the 

insulation of the 

storage system 

~ $ 100,000 – 250,000 / 

bus 

This includes: 

One fuel cell DC/DC 

system ($2 - $3/kW) 

and two wheelmounted 

electric 

motors ($4,000 each) 

Up to 3 years 

warranty 

5 years 

inspection? 

5 years? 

Current cost for units 

bigger than 60 kW 

Cost for storage 

capacity between 

20kWh and 100kWh 

Cost for storage 

capacity more than 30 

kg. 

Cost similarity with 

diesel hybrid buses. 

121


Labour 

~ $ 90,000 – 140,000/ 

bus 

Margin ~ 0% - 5% - - 

Risk Premium ~ 20% - 30% - 

Non Recurring 

Engineering 

costs 

TOTAL BUS 

Q2 

Generally included in 

the risk premium 

~ $ 1.6 – 2.2 million 

- 

- - 

- 

Assuming bus 

assembling and testing 

Driven by warranty 

length? 

Exchange rate 

assumed: €1= $1.4 

Would you agree with the costs structure and values showed by Table 3? And with the 

lifetimes shown? 

Where you disagree, please provide estimates of the costs for each component, of their 

life and warranty. 

Q3 

Which technical improvements/breakthroughs (e.g. weight, dimensions, durability, 

change of technology, etc.) would you envisage for the following components in the next 

5 and next 10 years? 

Chassis, Body, Fuel Cell modules, Cooling System, Energy Storage 

Systems, Hydrogen Storage Tanks, Control Power Electronics 

To what extent would these improvements affect cost, lifetime and warranty targets of 

these components? 

Components Indicative Cost 2015 

(US $) 

Chassis and body 

~ $ 200,000 – 300,000 

Life / Warranty 

2015 

Cost 

Remarks 

122


Fuel Cell unit 

/ bus unchanged 

~$ 200 - 500/ kW 

(driven by automotive 

volume of ~ 10,000 

cars/year) 

~ $ 1,200 – 3,000 (for 

volume of hundreds 

buses/year) 

FC cooling System ~ $ 20,000/ bus 


system 

Hydrogen Storage 

System 

Power Electronics 

and Electric Motors 

Labour 

Margin 

Risk Premium 

Non Recurring 

Engineering costs 

~ $ 300 – 1,000 / kWh 

~ $ 1,000 / kg 

~ $ 100,000 – 200,000 

/ bus 

~ $ 50,000 – 70,000 / 

bus 

Up to 20% 

Including risk premium 

and NRE 

Life target: 

20,000 hours 

Cost 

unchanged 

Auto industry 

target is 

$300/kWh 

Again assumes 

volume from 

passenger cars 

Limited scope 

for cost 

reduction 

As low as 

$5,000 / bus for 

a fully 

standardised 

manufacturing 

process? 

123


TOTAL BUS 

~ $ 450,000 – 

1,300,000 

Exchange rate 

assumed: €1= 

$1.4 

The total bus costs implied by this analysis seem low compared to industry estimates for 

2015 costs. Can you explain this discrepancy? 

124


B) Strategies for Effective Cost Reduction 

We understand that the cost of fuel cell buses is currently influenced by volume 

dynamics (i.e. bus orders) and by technology development through time. 

In performing feasibility studies for large scale demonstrations, we are separately 

analysing these two components in order to understand their interaction in driving the 

cost of buses. 

Q4a 

Would you agree with our understanding of cost dynamics? Are there factors which we 

should consider? 

Q4b 

Would you agree that fundamental technology development is currently the dominant 

element in driving fuel cell bus cost reductions? 

To what extent could technology improvements lower capital cost in the next 5 and 10 

years? 

Q4c 

At what point would you expect volume related dynamics to become effective in 

reducing bus cost in the next 5 to 10 years? 

What type of demand would be more effective: 

a continuous demand of modest volumes of buses 

or a discontinuous demand of large volumes of buses? 

When would you foresee volume dynamics as dominant in driving capital cost? 

Can you suggest any metric through which it may be possible to quantify the volume 

effects? 

125


Q5 

Which circumstances would favour the achievement of the more aggressive cost targets 

stated in Q1 in the next 5 - 10 years? For Example: 

Long term purchase commitments 

Long term contract for components replacement (e.g. 5, 10 years contract) 

Carbon price in the transport sector (e.g. EU-ETS) 

Other 

Would demand-aggregation mechanisms help in achieving cost reduction? 

Which aggregation mechanism would you envisage as effective? For example: 

Q6 

Aggregated demand of identical buses; 

Aggregated demand of single components, not necessary mounted in 

same buses; 

Other. 

Would demonstrations of 50 buses or more help in achieving the cost targets (Table 

2)? What is the optimal demonstration scale that would allow relevant costs 

reductions? 

What characteristics should demonstrations possess in order to be effective in 

ensuring cost reduction? For example: 

Would the presence of more than one competitor/manufacturer help or 

hinder cost reductions? 

What would be the ideal duration of a demonstration? 

Would a geographically dispersed demonstration help or hinder cost 

reductions? 

Other relevant aspects? 

126


Annex E: List of Principal Consultees 

Firm Sector 

Air Liquide Hydrogen production, delivery and dispensing 

Air Products Hydrogen production, delivery and dispensing 

EvoBus Fuel cell bus manufacturing 

Ballard Fuel cell system manufacturing 

Hydrogen Bus Alliance Alliance of transit agencies 

Hydrogenics Fuel cell system manufacturing 

ISE Hybrid-electric drivetrain‟s components 

manufacturing and integration 

Proterra Fuel cell and battery bus manufacturing 

Proton Motors Fuel cell system manufacturing 

SHELL Hydrogen fuel retailing 

Shen-Li Fuel cell system manufacturing 

Skoda Electric Hybrid-electric drivetrain‟s components 

manufacturing and integration, trolley bus 

manufacturing 

Total Hydrogen fuel retailing 

UTC Fuel cell systems manufacturing 

Van Hool Fuel cell bus manufacturing 

Vattenfall Europe 

Innovations 

Hydrogen fuel retailing 

Vossloh Kiepe Hybrid-electric drivetrain‟s components 

manufacturing and integration 

127


Bibliography of Annex A 

[CARB, 2010] California Air Resource Board, Postponement of the Purchase Requirement, Mail-Out #10- 

04, document available at http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/bus/zeb/zeb.htm 

[CFCB, 2010] Demonstration Project for Fuel Cell Commercialisation in China, project website, access 

2010, http://www.chinafcb.org/chinafcb_en/index.htm 

[CHFCA, 2010] Canada Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Association, webpage on BC Transit, 

http://www.chfca.ca/itoolkit.asp?pg=BC_TRANSIT_BUS_FLEET (access 12th January 2010). 

[DOE, 2010] U.S. Department of Energy, Hydrogen Program official website, 

http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov 

[DOE, 2009] U.S. Department of Energy, Overview of Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Activities, presentation 

prepared for Fuel Cells & Hydrogen Joint Undertaking Stakeholders General Assembly by Sunita 

Satyapal, Director, Hydrogen Program, US Department of Energy, 27 th October 2009. Document 

available at http://ec.europa.eu/research/fch/index_en.cfm?pg=sga2009_presentations 

[EERE, 2010] U.S. Department of Energy‟s Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Department, Fuel Cell 

Technology Program official website, http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells 

[EC, 2010a] European Commission, Fifth Framework Programme, http://cordis.europa.eu/fp5/ 

[EC, 2010b] European Commission, Sixth Framework Programme, 

http://cordis.europa.eu/fp6/dc/index.cfm?fuseaction=UserSite.FP6HomePage 

[EC, 2010c] European Commission, Seventh Framework Programme, 

http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/home_en.html 

[EIGA, 2004] European Industrial Gases Associations, Environmental Impacts of Hydrogen Plants, 2004. 

Available at http://test.eiga.apollo-com.be/catalogue/catalogue.asp 

[ERC, 2010] Korea‟s Hydrogen Energy R&D Centre, official webpage, http://www.h2.re.kr/english/index.htm 

[FCW, 2010] FuelCellWorks news release, November 2010 

[FTA, 2006] U.S. Federal Transport Authority, National Fuel Cell Bus Programme FY 2006-2009 Solicitation 

Guideline, 2006, document available at 

http://www.fta.dot.gov/funding/grants/grants_financing_3695.html 

[GWA, 2010] Government of Western Australia, Department of Transport Ecobus webpage, access 2010, 

http://www.transport.wa.gov.au/greentransport/19524.asp 

[JHFC, 2010] Japan Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Demonstration project official website and brochures. Available 

at http://www.jhfc.jp/e/jhfc/history/index.html , http://www.jhfc.jp/e/data/brochures.html 

[JTI, 2010] European Commission, Joint Technology Initiative on Fuel Cells and Hydrogen, official website, 

access Jan 2010. http://ec.europa.eu/research/fch/index_en.cfm 

[KEI, 2008] Korean Economic Institute, Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Activities in Korea, 2008, prepared by 

Tae-Hwan Lee for the 2008 Northeast Asia Energy Outlook Seminar, Washington, DC, 6 th May 2008. 

Document available at http://www.keia.org/Publications/Other/LeeFINAL.pdf 

128


[HRDDA, 1990] U.S. Hydrogen Research, Development and Demonstration Act, 1990, document 

available at http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/background.html 

[HFA,1996] U.S. Hydrogen Future Act, 1996, document available at 

http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/background.html 

[IC, 2008] Industry Canada, Canada Fuel Cell Commercialisation Roadmap Update, December 2008. 

Document available at http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/hfc-hpc.nsf/eng/h_mc00047.html 

[IDRC, 2008] MAKING CHOICES ABOUT HYDROGEN, Transport Issues for Developing Countries, 

Chapter 15, Hydrogen and fuel-cell activities in China. Edited by Lynn K. Mytelka and Grant Boyle, 

published by UNU Press/IDRC, 2008. Available at http://www.idrc.ca/fr/ev-128319-201-1- 

DO_TOPIC.html 

[NREL, 2003] U.S. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Fuel Cell Transit buses, ThunderPower bus 

evaluation at SunLine Transit Agency, report produced for the U.S. Department of Energy by the 

Center for Transportation Technologies and Systems, available at 

www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/fuelcells/pdfs/sunline_report.pdf 

[NREL, 2008] U.S. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Fuel Cell Transit buses, Third Evaluation 

Report, Alameda-Contra-Costa (AC) Transit Agency, July 2008. Available at 

http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/proj_fc_bus_eval.html 

[NREL, 2009] U.S. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, U.S. Fuel Cell Bus Projects, excel file updated 

01/07/09, document available at http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/proj_fc_bus_eval.html 

[NREL, 2009b] U.S. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Fuel Cell Buses in U.S. Transit Fleets: 

Current Status 2009, document available at http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/proj_fc_bus_eval.html 

[NREL, 2009c] U.S. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Controlled Hydrogen Fleet and 

Infrastructure Demonstration and Validation Project, Fall 2009 Composite Data Products, 11 th 

September 2009. Document available at http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/pdfs/46679.pdf 

[MCT, 2010] Ministerio de Ciencia e Tecnologia, Brazilian Action Plan for the Hydrogen Economy, official 

webpage http://www.mct.gov.br/index.php/content/view/77626.html 

[RET, 2008] Australia‟s Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism (RET), Hydrogen Technology 

Roadmap, 2008, available at 

http://www.ret.gov.au/energy/clean_energy_technologies/energy_technology_framework_and_roadm 

aps/hydrogen_technology_roadmap/Pages/HydrogenTechnologyRoadmap.aspx 

[UNDP, 2010] United Nation Development Program, Fuel Cell Bus Programme official website, access 

2010. http://www.undp.org/gef/fuel-cell/index.html 

[UNU-MERIT, 2006] United Nation University, Hydrogen Fuel Cell Exchange webpage, 

http://www.merit.unu.edu/hfc/article.php?nid=3 

129

Hydrogen Fuel Cell Bus Technology State of the ... - NEXTHYLIGHTS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?