energies

Review
Future of Electric and Hydrogen Cars and Trucks: An Overview
Aiman Albatayneh 1 , Adel Juaidi 2 , Mustafa Jaradat 1 and Francisco Manzano-Agugliaro 3, *

1 School of Natural Resources Engineering and Management, German Jordanian University,

Amman P.O. Box 35247, Jordan
2 Mechanical and Mechatronics Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering & Information Technology,
An-Najah National University, P.O. Box 7, Nablus 00970, Palestine
3 Department of Engineering, University of Almeria, ceiA3, 04120 Almeria, Spain
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: The negative consequences of toxic emissions from internal combustion engines, energy
security, climate change, and energy costs have led to a growing demand for clean power sources
in the automotive industry. The development of eco-friendly vehicle technologies, such as electric
and hydrogen vehicles, has increased. This article investigates whether hydrogen vehicles will
replace electric vehicles in the future. The results showed that fuel-cell cars are unlikely to compete
with electric cars. This is due to the advancements in electric vehicles and charging infrastructure,
which are becoming more cost-effective and efficient. Additionally, the technical progress in battery
electric vehicles (BEVs) is expected to reduce the market share of fuel-cell electric vehicles (FCEVs)
in passenger vehicles. However, significant investments have been made in hydrogen cars. Many
ongoing investments seem to follow the sunk cost fallacy, where decision-makers continue to invest
in an unprofitable project due to their already invested resources. Furthermore, even with megawatt
charging, fuel-cell trucks cost more than battery-powered electric trucks. The use cases for fuel-cell
electric trucks are also much more limited, as their running expenses are higher compared to electric
cars. Hydrogen vehicles may be beneficial for heavy transport in remote areas. However, it remains
to be seen if niche markets are large enough to support fuel-cell electric truck commercialization and
economies of scale. In summary, we believe that hydrogen vehicles will not replace electric cars and
trucks, at least before 2050.
Citation: Albatayneh, A.; Juaidi, A.;
Jaradat, M.; Manzano-Agugliaro, F.
Keywords: hydrogen cars and trucks; electric cars and trucks; future transportation
Future of Electric and Hydrogen Cars
and Trucks: An Overview. Energies
2023, 16, 3230. https://doi.org/
10.3390/en16073230
1. Introduction
Academic Editors: Thi Thu Le,
Because of the harmful implications of toxic emissions from internal combustion en-
Martin Dornheim and
gines, there is an increasing demand for clean power sources in vehicle-related technology.
Claudio Pistidda
The existing environmentally friendly automotive technology is evolving with time. For in-
Received: 9 February 2023 stance, biodiesel is an ecologically friendly, cleaner-burning alternative that may be utilized
Revised: 28 March 2023 in diesel engines with minimal modification. Biodiesel reduces emissions of greenhouse
Accepted: 31 March 2023 gases by up to 86% [1,2]. Green hydrogen is a fuel that is produced with renewable energy
Published: 3 April 2023 rather than fossil fuels. It can provide sustainable energy for industry, transportation, and
more, with water as a waste. Hydrogen energy is exceptionally adaptable since it may be
utilized in gaseous or liquid form, converted to power or fuel, and produced in various
methods. Approximately 70 million metric tons of hydrogen are generated annually for oil
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
refining, ammonia production, steel manufacture, chemical and fertilizer production, food
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
processing, metalworking, and other applications [3].
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
The misconception that 90% of all atoms in the cosmos are hydrogen atoms is incorrect.
conditions of the Creative Commons
Recent research indicates that around 75% of baryonic matter in the cosmos is composed
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
of hydrogen, with the other 25% primarily comprised of helium. This estimate is based
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ on studies of the abundance of elements in stars and galaxies and observations of cosmic
4.0/). microwave background radiation. According to most research, hydrogen is the most

Energies 2023, 16, 3230. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16073230 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Energies 2023, 16, 3230 2 of 16

abundant element in the universe, followed by helium. Exact percentages may vary
somewhat depending on the technique of measurement performed, but most agree that
hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe. However, it is crucial to note that
baryonic matter (consisting of protons, neutrons, and other subatomic particles) comprises
just a minuscule portion of the universe’s total matter. The remainder is thought to consist
of poorly understood dark matter and dark energy, which are topics of continuing study
and discussion [4]. Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, yet it is
often found as a component of compounds with other elements [5]. Atoms of hydrogen
can unite to produce molecular hydrogen (H2 ), the universe’s most prevalent form of
hydrogen. Hydrogen is also a component of several other molecules, including water
(H2 O) and methane (CH4 ) [6]. Despite its abundance, hydrogen atoms cannot be found
alone. To obtain hydrogen, its atoms must be separated from other elements in water.
Hydrogen production is achieved through the steam methane reforming process, which
employs a catalyst to transform methane and high-temperature steam into hydrogen,
carbon monoxide, and a negligible quantity of carbon dioxide [7], which generates the
vast majority of hydrogen used today. In the next stage, carbon monoxide, steam, and
the catalyst create further hydrogen and carbon dioxide. Finally, carbon dioxide and
contaminants are eliminated, resulting in pure hydrogen.
There are generally three types of hydrogen: Grey hydrogen: This is the most common
type of hydrogen produced today and is made by the process of steam methane reforming
(SMR) or coal gasification. Grey hydrogen is produced from non-renewable sources of
energy and emits greenhouse gases during its production. Blue hydrogen: This is also
produced using the SMR or ATR process, but the carbon dioxide produced during the
process is captured and stored, making it a cleaner form of hydrogen. Green hydrogen: This
is produced through electrolysis, using renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, or hy-
dropower to split water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen. It is considered the cleanest
form of hydrogen as it produces no greenhouse gas emissions during its production.
Fossil fuels, such as propane, gasoline, and coal, can be transformed into hydrogen.
This method of manufacturing hydrogen from fossil fuels produces grey hydrogen and
contributes 830 million metric tons of CO2 annually [8], similar to the yearly emissions
of the UK and Indonesia combined. Steam Methane Reforming (SMR) or Auto Thermal
Reforming (ATR) separates natural gas into hydrogen and carbon dioxide, producing
blue hydrogen.
Another method for producing hydrogen is through water electrolysis, which produces
oxygen as a by-product. The electrolysis process uses an electric current to separate water
into hydrogen and oxygen through an electrolyzer. If the energy used in the process comes
from renewable sources, such as solar or wind, the resulting hydrogen is known as “green
hydrogen” and is considered environmentally friendly. The decreasing cost of renewable
energy is driving growing interest in green hydrogen [6]. In recent years, the price of
renewable energy has declined rapidly, making green hydrogen more economically viable.
According to research by the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) [9], the
levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) for solar and wind generation has fallen by 89% and
70%, respectively, since 2009. The global weighted average levelized cost of electricity
for solar power reduced by 85 percent between 2010 and 2020, according to a separate
analysis by Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) [10]. In addition, the levelized cost of
electricity for wind generation reduced by 49% during the same time period, according
to the research. The declining cost of renewable energy, especially solar and wind power,
has made the production of green hydrogen, which can be utilized as a clean fuel source
in a variety of applications, more cost-effective. Recent interest in green hydrogen has
been extensive. President Biden, the 46th president of the USA, has vowed to produce
renewable energy-based green hydrogen at a lower cost than natural gas [11]. The United
States Department of Energy will invest up to USD 100 million over five years (2022–2026)
in hydrogen and fuel cell R&D [12]. This investment intends to expedite the adoption of
hydrogen and fuel cell technologies in transportation and other applications [13,14]. This
Energies 2023, 16, 3230 3 of 16

funding is part of the efforts of the Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies Office (HFTO) to
expedite the development and implementation of hydrogen and fuel cell technologies in
the United States. The Hydrogen Fuel Technology Organization supports several research
and development initiatives, such as fuel cell electric cars, hydrogen production, storage,
and infrastructure.
Similar to the United States, the European Union has earmarked USD 430 billion to
create 70 green hydrogen projects by 2030 in order to meet its Green Deal objectives [15].
This investment is intended to support the development of a green hydrogen economy and
minimize the carbon footprint of the region. The cash will help various projects, including
manufacturing renewable hydrogen and deploying fuel cell vehicles.
In addition, Chile, Germany, Japan, Australia, and Saudi Arabia are undertaking
substantial green hydrogen investments. Chile, Germany, Japan, Australia, and Saudi
Arabia are investing considerably in green hydrogen [16]. In order to attain 5 Gigawatts
(GW) of electrolysis capacity by 2025, the Chilean government aims to invest USD 30 million
in green hydrogen projects by 2022 [17]. Germany has spent EUR 9 billion to build a national
strategy for producing 5 GW of green hydrogen by 2030 [18]. The Japanese government has
invested 2 trillion (USD 18.5 billion) towards realizing its goal [19] of producing 300,000 tons
of green hydrogen yearly by 2030. Australia has committed USD 370 million to hydrogen
research and development to produce USD 2 per kilogram by 2030 [20]. Saudi Arabia has
established a USD 5 billion green hydrogen effort to produce 650 tons of green hydrogen
by 2025, intending to export it to Europe and Asia [21].
Given the difficulty of lowering emissions from some economic sectors, most analysts
believe that green hydrogen will be vital to achieving the goals of the Paris Agreement.
The Paris Agreement’s main goal is to limit global warming to well below 2 degrees
Celsius above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase
to 1.5 degrees Celsius. This is to be achieved through a cooperation framework to enhance
climate action, with countries submitting nationally determined contributions (NDCs) and
regularly reporting on their progress. The Agreement also aims to strengthen countries’
ability to deal with climate change’s impacts and support them in their efforts.
The United States’ top three contributions to global warming are transportation, power
generation, and industry [22]. Green hydrogen is “critical” for attaining net-zero carbon
emissions by 2050 and satisfying the objectives of the Paris Agreement, according to
research by the International Energy Agency (IEA) [23]. The paper stresses the significance
of green hydrogen in sectors that are difficult to decarbonize with electricity alone, such as
heavy manufacturing, shipping, and aviation.
Another study by the Hydrogen Council, a worldwide coalition led by Chief Executive
Officers (CEOs), also emphasizes the significance of hydrogen in reaching the goals of
the Paris Agreement, suggesting that hydrogen may supply up to 18% of global energy
consumption by 2050 and help cut yearly carbon emissions by six gigatons [24].
In addition, a report by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) high-
lights the potential of green hydrogen to reduce transportation, heating, and industrial
emissions and urges further investment in the technology to fulfill climate goals [25].
Future hydrogen production will rely on several criteria, such as cost, efficiency, scal-
ability, and environmental implications, making it impossible to foresee which techniques
or technologies will emerge as important players. However, as the need for sustainable and
low-emission technologies develops, electrolysis driven by renewable energy and biomass
gasification will likely play a greater part in future hydrogen generation. Table 1 summarizes
the present and expected cost per kilogram of hydrogen for each technique [23,26].
Note that the present and anticipated costs are estimates that may change based on
location, size, and technological advances. The trend, however, is predicted to cut prices for
all techniques, with renewable energy electrolysis and grid electricity electrolysis becoming
more competitive as renewable energy costs decline. In addition, steam methane reforming
and coal gasification may encounter difficulties in the future because of their large carbon
emissions and the possible expense of carbon capture and storage.
Energies 2023, 16, 3230 4 of 16

Table 1. Predicted cost per kg of hydrogen for each method.

Hydrogen Production Method Current Cost per kg Predicted Cost per kg

Steam Methane Reforming (SMR) USD 1.5–2.5 USD 1.0–USD 1.5
Coal Gasification USD 2.0–3.5 USD 1.5–2.0
Electrolysis (Renewable Energy) USD 2.5–7.0 USD 1.0–3.0
Biomass Gasification USD 3.0–5.0 USD 2.0–3.0
Photoelectrochemical (PEC) USD 20.0–30.0 USD 10.0–15.0

Improving energy efficiency, increasing the use of renewable energy, and transitioning
to direct electrification can reduce greenhouse gas emissions from electricity generation
and parts of the transportation sector. However, decarbonizing the remaining 15% or more
of the economy, which encompasses industries such as aviation, shipping, long-distance
transportation, and the production of concrete and steel, presents a challenge, as these
sectors require high-density energy or intense heat. Green hydrogen may provide a solution
to these needs [27].
Hydrogen offers a major advantage over batteries by using excess renewable energy
and being able to be stored for a long duration. The major benefit of green hydrogen is its
ability to be produced anywhere where water and energy are available to generate electricity
or heat. Hydrogen has many applications, including being used in the industrial sector and
stored in existing gas pipelines to power household appliances or being transformed into a
zero-carbon shipping fuel, such as ammonia, to transport renewable energy. Hydrogen can
power everything that requires energy, including electric vehicles, electronic equipment,
and fuel cells. Additionally, unlike batteries, hydrogen fuel cells do not require recharging
and do not degrade as long as hydrogen fuel is present.
The term “hydrogen vehicles” refers to a range of automobiles powered by hydrogen.
These vehicles may utilize internal combustion engines, gas turbine engines, or hydrogen
fuel cells as their propulsion systems. There are typically two types of hydrogen-powered
engines: a traditional internal combustion engine that uses hydrogen gas instead of gasoline
or natural gas and a fuel cell engine. Like petrol stations, hydrogen fuel stations are available
for hydrogen vehicles. The hydrogen gas produced by steam methane reformation is kept
in hydrogen filling stations. In addition, the construction of hydrogen-powered vehicles
is challenging and costly. Hydrogen is flammable and deadly if not properly stored
and handled.
Hydrogen can be compressed to different pressures depending on its intended use. For
example, 350 and 700 bar are common compression pressures for hydrogen storage in fuel
cell vehicles; 350 bar is suitable for shorter-range vehicles, while 700 bar is more suitable
for longer-range vehicles as it allows for greater storage capacity in the same volume.
Industrial applications may also use different pressure levels depending on their specific
requirements. Hydrogen must be compressed to high pressure for road vehicles, typically
to 700 bar. This requires energy and infrastructure to compress and transport the hydrogen,
which adds to the cost of using it as a fuel. Most hydrogen currently produced worldwide is
made from fossil fuels, primarily natural gas, in a process called steam methane reforming.
This energy-intensive process produces carbon dioxide (CO2 ) as a byproduct. The IEA
states that steam methane reforming accounts for over 80% of global hydrogen production.
Most of this hydrogen is used in industrial applications, such as ammonia production for
fertilizers and refining petroleum. Renewable hydrogen production methods, such as water
electrolysis powered by wind or solar energy, are available but more expensive than steam
methane reforming. Renewable hydrogen production has been estimated to be two to three
times more expensive than the hydrogen produced from natural gas. However, the cost of
renewable hydrogen is expected to decrease in the coming years as the cost of renewable
energy technologies continues to fall. While hydrogen has the potential to be a low-carbon
alternative to fossil fuels, producing hydrogen requires significant amounts of energy and
 expensive than steam methane reforming. Renewable hydrogen production has been es-
timated to be two to three times more expensive than the hydrogen produced from natural
gas. However, the cost of renewable hydrogen is expected to decrease in the coming years
as the cost of renewable energy technologies continues to fall. While hydrogen has the
Energies 2023, 16, 3230 potential to be a low-carbon alternative to fossil fuels, producing hydrogen requires5 of sig-
16
nificant amounts of energy and infrastructure, and most of the hydrogen produced today
comes from fossil fuels, with associated CO2 emissions.
On the other
infrastructure, andhand,
mostelectric automobiles
of the hydrogen are propelled
produced today by comesan electric motor
from fossil powered
fuels, with
by electrical energy,
associated CO2 emissions. rather than an internal combustion engine and lack a petrol tank.
BatteryOn electric
the other vehicles (BEVs) automobiles
hand, electric are a category areofpropelled
battery-powered electric
by an electric carspowered
motor that lackbya
fuel tank energy,
electrical and an rather
internal combustion
than an internalengine.
combustionOtherengine
similarand technologies
lack a petrol include
tank. plug-in
Battery
hybrid electric
electric vehiclescars (PHEVs).
(BEVs) are a category of battery-powered electric cars that lack a fuel tank
and an Theinternal
key advantage
combustion of battery
engine. electric
Othervehicles
similar istechnologies
that they rely on theplug-in
include alreadyhybrid
estab-
lished electric grid
electric cars (PHEVs). infrastructure, allowing for any electrical outlet in the world to act as
a charging
The keystation.
advantageIn contrast,
of battery fuel-cell
electricelectric
vehiclesvehicles
is that they require
rely the creation
on the already of established
new infra-
structure
electric from
grid scratch. Theallowing
infrastructure, main challenge in the widespread
for any electrical outlet in the adoption
world toofact battery electric
as a charging
station.
vehiclesIniscontrast,
the needfuel-cell
for more electric vehicles require
conventional the creation
fast-charging of new
stations, infrastructure
which is simpler from than
scratch.
developingThe main challenge
a complete in the widespread
hydrogen production, adoption of battery electric
transportation, storage,vehicles is the need
and distribution
for more conventional fast-charging stations, which is simpler than developing a complete
system.
hydrogen production,
Battery transportation,
electric vehicles (BEVs) storage,
rely solelyandon distribution
the batterysystem.
for energy storage. In con-
trast,Battery
hydrogenelectric vehicles
fuel-cell (BEVs)
electric rely solely
vehicles (FCEVs)on the battery
use both afor energy
fuel storage.
cell stack andInacontrast,
smaller
hydrogen
battery forfuel-cell electric vehicles
energy storage. The battery (FCEVs)
in anuse
FCEV both is atypically
fuel cellmuch
stack smaller
and a smaller
than abattery
BEV’s.
for
It isenergy storage. for
used primarily Thepower
battery in an FCEV
buffering duringis typically
acceleration, muchothersmaller
peakthan powera BEV’s.
demands, It is
used primarily forbraking.
and regenerative power buffering
However,during acceleration,
both vehicles other peakrelated
face challenges power to demands,
their energy and
regenerative
storage systems.braking.
BEVsHowever, both vehicles
face challenges relatedface challenges
to the battery’s related
limited to their
rangeenergy
and thestorage
time
systems. BEVs face challenges related to the battery’s limited range
required to recharge it, as well as the cost and weight of the battery. FCEVs face challenges and the time required
to recharge
related it, as
to the costwell
andas complexity
the cost andofweightthe fuelof the
cellbattery.
stack and FCEVs face challenges
hydrogen storage and related
the
to the cost and complexity of the fuel cell
limited availability of hydrogen refueling infrastructure. stack and hydrogen storage and the limited
availability of hydrogen
A hydrogen fuel cellrefueling
consists infrastructure.
of an anode and a cathode, separated by an electrolyte.
A hydrogen fuel cell consists
Hydrogen gas is supplied to the anode, of an anode
whereand a cathode,a separated
it undergoes by an electrolyte.
chemical reaction that sep-
Hydrogen gas is supplied to the anode, where it undergoes
arates the electrons from the hydrogen atoms, leaving positively charged hydrogen a chemical reaction ions that
separates the electrons from the hydrogen atoms, leaving positively
(protons). The electrons flow through an external circuit, producing an electric current charged hydrogen ions
(protons).
that can beThe usedelectrons
to power flow through
a device oran externala circuit,
recharge battery.producing
Meanwhile, an atelectric current oxy-
the cathode, that
can be used to power a device or recharge a battery. Meanwhile,
gen from the air reacts with the hydrogen ions and the electrons that have flowed through at the cathode, oxygen
from the air reacts with the hydrogen ions and the electrons that have flowed through
the external circuit, producing water vapor and heat as byproducts. The water vapor is
the external circuit, producing water vapor and heat as byproducts. The water vapor is
typically expelled from the fuel cell as exhaust. Figure 1 is a simple schematic diagram to
typically expelled from the fuel cell as exhaust. Figure 1 is a simple schematic diagram to
help illustrate this process:
help illustrate this process:

Figure 1. Schematic diagram of a fuel cell working principle.

The electrolyte membrane is a crucial component of the fuel cell, as it must be able
to conduct protons while blocking electrons and preventing gas crossover between the
anode and cathode. Different types of electrolyte membranes can be used depending on
the specific application and requirements of the fuel cell. The cathode uses hydrogen as a
propulsion source, and the fuel cell is more energy-efficient than a conventional internal
Energies 2023, 16, 3230 6 of 16

combustion engine, with a 2–3-times-higher efficiency [28]. In addition, refueling a fuel-cell

electric car often takes less than four minutes.
Hydrogen is a colorless, odorless, and flammable gas. Like many other fuels, it can
ignite and burn if it comes into contact with an ignition source, such as a spark, heat, or
flame. Hydrogen has a wide flammable range and can ignite at as low concentrations in air
(hydrogen can ignite in air at concentrations as low as 4% by volume and can continue to burn
up to concentrations of 75% by volume). Handling hydrogen safely requires proper training,
procedures, and equipment. Some of the safety risks associated with hydrogen include:
• Fire and explosion: Hydrogen has low ignition energy and can easily ignite and
burn if it comes into contact with a spark or heat source. This can lead to fire and
explosion hazards.
• Asphyxiation: Hydrogen gas is lighter than air and can displace oxygen in poorly
ventilated or confined spaces. This can lead to asphyxiation if proper precautions are
not taken.
• Toxicity: Hydrogen gas is not toxic, but some of the impurities in hydrogen, such as
ammonia and hydrogen sulfide, can be toxic and pose health risks.
• Leakages: Hydrogen can leak from storage tanks, pipelines, and other equipment. If
not detected and controlled, hydrogen leakage can pose fire and explosion hazards
and asphyxiation risks.
Safety measures, such as proper ventilation, gas detection systems, and training for
handling hydrogen, are essential to mitigate these risks. Hydrogen can be safely handled
and used as fuel but requires proper handling and precautions.
This is evident in hydrogen-powered automobiles, where the fuel cell serves as a
source of electricity for the electric motor. In a fuel cell, the cathode is responsible for
sucking in oxygen, mixing it with electrons and protons from the anode to generate water,
and releasing energy to power the electric motor [28]. Despite being highly flammable,
hydrogen burns in moderate amounts, similarly to other fuels. Its lightweight nature,
being approximately 57 times lighter than gasoline fumes, can quickly spread into the
surroundings, making it relatively safer in the event of a fire [29].
Hydrogen is a light gas with a low volumetric density, meaning that it takes up more
space than other fuels with the same amount of energy. This makes hydrogen transportation
challenging, especially for long distances, because it requires large and expensive storage
tanks or pipelines. Hydrogen can be compressed to increase its volumetric density to
overcome this issue, but this requires energy and specialized equipment. Alternatively, it
can be liquefied, which reduces its volume and allows for easier transportation and storage.
However, this also requires energy and specialized equipment, as well as maintaining the
low temperature required for liquid hydrogen (−253 ◦ C) [30].
Hydrogen may cause steel pipes and welds to become brittle and shatter; hence,
natural gas pipelines occasionally transfer a small quantity of hydrogen. When blended
with natural gas in a less than 5-to-10-percent ratio, hydrogen can be safely transported
through the existing natural gas infrastructure. However, to transport pure hydrogen,
the existing natural gas pipelines would have to undergo significant modifications to
prevent metal brittleness, or new dedicated hydrogen pipelines would have to be built [31].
Platinum is used in fuel cells, which will increase their cost. The high cost of fuel cells has
hindered fuel cell progress [32]. Ongoing research seeks to improve the performance of fuel
cells and to develop more cost-effective and practical materials. It has been difficult for fuel
cell electric vehicles to store sufficient hydrogen—five to thirteen kilograms of compressed
hydrogen gas—to enable the typical 300-mile driving range [33]. The main challenge of
green hydrogen is its cost. At present, green hydrogen is three times more expensive than
natural gas in the United States. This higher cost is due to the high expense of electrolysis,
which is the process used to produce green hydrogen.
Nevertheless, as production increases, electrolyzer prices are expected to decrease.
Currently, gray hydrogen is priced at around EUR 1.50 per kilogram, blue hydrogen at
between EUR 2 and EUR 3 per kilogram, and green hydrogen between EUR 3.50 and EUR
Energies 2023, 16, 3230 7 of 16

6 per kilogram [34]. By 2030, the hydrogen economy in the United States might create USD
140 billion and sustain 700,000 jobs [35].
Hydrogen feasibility studies have been performed; for instance, it was proven feasible
by Jordan [36]. The role of hydrogen in the manufacturing, transportation, and synthetic
aviation fuel industries is crucial. However, the widespread adoption of hydrogen technol-
ogy for sustainable road transportation is unlikely to occur anytime soon. Our focus should
be on the growth of battery electric passenger and freight vehicles. As of 2016, there were
only 25,000 hydrogen fuel cell vehicles on the road, with 2 models available for purchase
and only 540 hydrogen filling stations globally. In contrast, the number of battery electric
and plug-in hybrid vehicles is rapidly growing, with an estimated 15 million vehicles on
the road and over 350 models currently available worldwide [18]. Currently, nearly all
automakers provide such vehicles for sale [37].
Moreover, while the majority of drivers of battery electric vehicles (BEVs) currently
charge at home, there were approximately 1.3 million public charging points in operation
in 2020, a quarter of which were fast chargers (at least 22 kW), and more than 1000 public
chargers of up to 300 kW are now available in Europe. When battery electric vehicles had
restricted ranges of less than 150 km and charging took a few hours, long-distance travel
was a crucial and substantial market sector for fuel-cell vehicles. The increased energy
density of compressed hydrogen and the ability to recharge within a few minutes make
fuel-cell cars excellent for regular long-distance travel compared to battery electric vehicles.
Nevertheless, battery electric cars currently have a real-world range of more than 400 km,
and the newest versions employ 800 V batteries that can be charged for 200 km in roughly
15 min [37].
The trucking industry powered by hydrogen fuel is not as advanced as the battery-
powered sector, with about 30,000 battery electric vehicles globally available, primarily
in China. On the other hand, fuel-cell electric trucks are still in test trials and not yet
commercially available. In contrast, over 150 battery electric truck models for medium
and heavy freight have already been introduced. The current challenge for battery electric
vehicles is long-distance logistics (with an average of 100,000 km per year) and transporting
heavy cargo, which results in high energy consumption per kilometer. This is where
hydrogen trucks are often discussed as a potential solution. Nevertheless, the goal of having
100,000 fuel-cell trucks on European roads by 2030, set by several truck manufacturers
and fuel-cell and infrastructure suppliers, appears unlikely in light of their statements that
the earliest commercial production of fuel-cell electric trucks will commence in 2027. By
then, second-generation battery electric vehicles will be commercially available and in
operation [37].
Long-distance trucking of more than 500 km per day presents a difficulty for battery
electric solutions; however, European laws compel truck drivers to take a 45 min rest
after driving for more than 4.5 h. In 4.5 h, a large vehicle could travel around 400 km.
Consequently, feasible battery ranges of around 450 km would be sufficient if high-power
quick charging was generally accessible for battery electric vehicles. For a big vehicle to
charge 400 km in 45 min, the average charging power required is around 800 kW. The
current specification for fast charging enables up to 350 kW. Despite this, a new megawatt
charging system standard is now being developed, allowing for over 2 MW charging.
Specifications are anticipated, and a final standard will be established by 2023. Truck
manufacturers in Europe are lobbying to construct a megawatt charging network, and
prospective locations for fast chargers have been suggested. A draft European infrastructure
plan suggests that high-power charges are required every 50 km along the leading highway
network [37].

2. Electric vs. Hydrogen Automobile

The future of electric and hydrogen cars and trucks is likely influenced by several
factors, including technological advancements, cost considerations, and government poli-
cies and regulations. Battery electric vehicles (BEVs) are powered by electricity stored in
Energies 2023, 16, 3230 8 of 16

a battery and are becoming increasingly popular due to their high efficiency, low emis-
sions, and relatively low operating costs. Advancements in battery technology, such as
increased energy density and faster charging times, will likely make BEVs more practical
and attractive to consumers. Fuel-cell electric vehicles (FCEVs) are powered by hydrogen
and produce only water as a byproduct, making them a clean and efficient alternative to
traditional gasoline-powered vehicles. The future of FCEVs will depend on advancements
in hydrogen production and distribution technology and the cost of hydrogen fuel. As the
technology becomes more mature and hydrogen production and distribution become more
efficient, the cost of FCEVs will likely decrease, making them more affordable and practical
for consumers.
Regarding government policies and regulations, both BEVs and FCEVs are likely to
benefit from policies aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions and promoting the use
of clean vehicles. Governments may offer incentives, such as tax credits or subsidies, to
encourage the purchase of clean vehicles, which can help to drive the market for electric
and hydrogen vehicles.
The automotive industry has not reached a consensus on the best approach to reducing
vehicle emissions. While many car manufacturers are focusing on battery electric vehicles,
a few, such as Toyota, Hyundai, and General Motors, are still pursuing hydrogen fuel cell
technology, which can offer zero-emission driving but is less efficient than battery electric
vehicles. The public’s response to fuel-cell electric vehicles has been lackluster, largely due
to the lack of infrastructure and overall lower efficiency than electric cars. Charging electric
cars overnight at the driver’s home is possible, but this is not the case for hydrogen fuel
cell vehicles. A recent study [38] has cast doubt on the feasibility of fuel-cell electric cars on
the market for commercial trucks, even if they still have a chance.
The charging infrastructure for BEVs is rapidly expanding, with many cities investing
in public charging networks. However, the production of BEV batteries still requires signif-
icant amounts of energy, much of which comes from fossil fuels. Additionally, there are
concerns about the limited availability of certain metals in producing BEV batteries [39,40].
As for the future of these two technologies, the increasing demand for clean transportation
and the rapid development of charging infrastructure indicate that BEVs will likely play
a significant role in the future of personal transportation. However, hydrogen FCVs may
also have a place in specific niche markets, such as long-haul trucking, where their more
extended driving range and faster refueling times may be advantageous [41].

Comparison between Fuel-Cell Electric Vehicles (FCEVs) and Battery Electric Vehicles (BEVs)
The car industry has disputed FCEVs vs. BEVs. Toyota, Hyundai, and GM have
made FCEVs practicable. Most automakers prefer BEVs. Zero-emission FCEVs are less
efficient than BEVs. Infrastructure hinders FCEV adoption. FCEVs, unlike BEVs, require
fuelling stations. BEVs are more energy-efficient than FCEVs. FCs are being developed
for hydrogen-powered EVs [42]. This makes sustainable transportation simpler. A BEV’s
onboard battery pack powers several battery cell configurations. BEVs are cheaper and
greener, but their lithium-ion batteries only hold 1% of the energy in gasoline or diesel [43].
Battery electric powertrains are likely in smaller, lighter cars. Battery power limits vehicle
range [44,45]. The cost of electric vehicles (EVs) is influenced by factors such as battery
technology, power pricing, government incentives, and regulations. The advancements in
battery technology can reduce the cost of EVs, and improved battery efficiency can further
decrease their prices. Energy prices also affect the cost of operating EVs; if electricity
prices decrease, EVs become cheaper to run, but if power prices increase, the expenses
also increase. Government subsidies and regulations can impact EV prices, and tax credits
and other incentives may reduce operating costs. However, the implementation of cleaner
electricity rules may increase EV running expenses. The cost of EVs will continue to
decrease as technology evolves and becomes widely adopted. In addition, research suggests
that the cost of producing green hydrogen may decrease by up to 85 percent by 2050,
making it more competitive with fossil fuels [46]. According to a second study by the
Energies 2023, 16, 3230 9 of 16

Hydrogen Council, the cost of hydrogen fuel cell systems might drop by 50 percent by 2030,
bringing the price of hydrogen vehicles in line with battery electric vehicles (BEVs) [47].
However, it should be highlighted that there are still obstacles to overcome in terms of the
cost of producing and storing hydrogen, as well as the development of the infrastructure
required to sustain a hydrogen economy [48]. In contrast, battery prices have decreased
considerably in recent years, and this trend is anticipated to continue. According to research
by Bloomberg New Energy Finance, the cost of lithium-ion batteries might decrease by an
additional 52 percent by 2030, while their energy density could grow by 42 percent [49].
It is important to note that the relative prices of hydrogen and batteries may vary based
on the particular application and local conditions. Hydrogen may be more cost-effective
for heavy-duty and long-distance transportation, whilst batteries may be better suited for
short-range and urban applications [50]. BEVs and FCEVs are two forms of zero-emission
cars that potentially considerably reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation
sector. FCEVs utilize hydrogen fuel and a fuel cell to create energy for the electric motor,
whereas BEVs use rechargeable lithium-ion batteries to store electricity and power an
electric motor. The comparison of costs between the two types of cars is contingent upon
a number of variables, including the price of batteries, hydrogen, and the availability of
charging or refueling infrastructure [51].
Due to the high cost of fuel cell technology and the restricted availability of hydrogen
filling facilities, BEVs are typically less costly than FCEVs. As manufacturing quantities
rise and technology improves, however, the cost of fuel cell technology is likely to fall
over time. In addition, it is anticipated that the cost of hydrogen will fall as production
grows and as additional renewable sources of hydrogen become accessible. One research
estimates that by 2030, the price of hydrogen might fall to between USD 1.40 and USD
2.60 per kilogram, making it more competitive with gasoline per mile. On the other hand,
technical developments and economies of scale in production are anticipated to reduce the
price of batteries over time. Nonetheless, the restricted range and recharging time of BEVs
remain significant impediments to their widespread adoption.
FCEVs, on the other hand, have a longer range and can be refueled more rapidly,
making them more suited for long-distance travel [52]. BEVs and FCEVs have the potential
to considerably cut greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector. Nevertheless,
their cost competitiveness is contingent on a number of factors, including the price of
batteries and hydrogen, as well as the availability of charging and refueling infrastructure.
Refueling a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle still takes longer than refueling a conventional
gasoline vehicle, typically around 5 to 10 min. The advantage over a battery electric vehicle
is the longer driving range between refueling stops. Additionally, the statement explains
that hydrogen fuel cells offer higher energy density than battery packs, but this advantage
comes with added costs and technical challenges. The use of fuel cell technology in electric
vehicles has the potential to overcome issues such as range anxiety, as these vehicles
have longer ranges and quicker charging times compared to battery electric vehicles.
This advantage could potentially outweigh the disadvantages of producing, storing, and
distributing hydrogen fuel. However, it is important to note that there are still challenges
to be addressed in the widespread adoption of fuel cell technology, including the high cost
of production and the need for an extensive refueling infrastructure [53,54]. In addition,
financial benefits are associated with using FCEVs because it is estimated that the cost of
charging or discharging a lithium-ion battery is approximately USD 130/kW in terms of
power output. This presents an opportunity for consumers to save money [55–60].
On the other hand, the cost of hydrogen storage tanks in compressed form and fuel cell
stacks are estimated at approximately USD 15 per kilowatt-hour and USD 53 per kilowatt,
respectively. In addition, it is anticipated that the price of hydrogen will be decreased to
USD 8 per kilogram, which is comparable to USD 0.24 per kilowatt-hour [61]. Even though
the technology and the prices of refueling are competitive with those of BEVs, the cost of
acquiring FCEVs is typically still expensive, and the infrastructure for refueling is not less
 Energies 2023, 16, 3230 10 of 16

despread. Regarding performance, FCEVs, typically utilized for traveling longer distances,
generally perform better than BEVs.
If all goes according to plan, the price of hydrogen fuel at the pump might drop from
EUR 9.50 per kg to as low as EUR 1.5 per kg in the year 2050. FCEVs would have a fighting
chance against BEVs if they had a price point of EUR 2.5 per kilogram. However, the
success of this pricing would be contingent on a high degree of subsidy and market take-up.
Fuel-cell electric vehicles (FCEVs) would only succeed if the costs of similar completely
electric vehicles increased. In the most pessimistic scenario, the price of hydrogen fuel in
2050 would barely decrease, reaching EUR 8.50 per kg [60].
Based on historical data on electrolyzer investment expenses, Wright’s Law, also
known as the learning curve, suggests a learning rate of around 18% [62–64]. However,
low and high estimates of 12 to 20% have been used by others [36]. The historical learning
rate for different types of technology likewise varies significantly from one instance to
the next. For instance, the learning rate for lead batteries is about 4%, but the learning
rate for portable lithium-ion batteries is believed to be 30% [65]. Because of the learning
curve effect, the cost of lithium-ion (Li-ion) battery cells drops by 28% for every cumulative
doubling of the number of units manufactured [66].
Assuming both BEVs and FCEVs are powered entirely by renewable energy sources, the
overall energy efficiency (i.e., the amount of energy converted into useful work) for BEVs is
around 77%, while FCEVs have an efficiency of around 33%. However, the statement also
highlights that FCEVs are less energy-efficient than BEVs, meaning that more energy is lost
during the conversion process from the fuel source to the energy used to power the vehicle.
This means that even if both types of vehicles are powered entirely by renewable sources,
FCEVs would require more energy to achieve the same driving range as BEVs, making
them potentially more expensive to operate [67]. This significant difference in overall energy
efficiency will create a massive challenge for future hydrogen cars. In addition, the cost of
FCEVs is much higher than BEVs, and their prices are dropping faster than FCEVs. The energy
Energies 2023, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW content of hydrogen is around 33.6 kWh, and the overall energy efficiency is almost 11 half
of 17the
BEVs; the running cost for FCEVs will compete with the BEVs when the cost of hydrogen is
below USD 1.5/kWh. Figure 2 illustrates the cost of useful energy in USD/kWh used to move
the BEVs and FCEVs, assuming the cost of electricity is USD 0.1/kWh and the overall energy
efficiency for BEVs and FCEVs is 77% and 33%, respectively.
$0.80
Cost of useful energy in $/kWh

$0.70
Fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs)
$0.60
$0.50 Battery Electric Vehicles at $0.1/kWh

$0.40
$0.30
$0.20
$0.10
$-
8.00 7.50 7.00 6.50 6.00 5.50 5.00 4.50 4.00 3.50 3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50
Hydrogen cost $/KG
Figure 2. The cost of useful energy in USD/kWh used to move the BEVs and FCEVs [60–75].
Figure 2. The cost of useful energy in USD/kWh used to move the BEVs and FCEVs [60–75].
The preceding number is consistent with the following investigations. A study under-
Thea cost
took preceding number
analysis of BEVsisand
consistent
FCEVs in with the following
Europe investigations.
and determined that FCEVs A had
study un-
a greater
dertook a cost analysis of BEVs and FCEVs in Europe and determined that
cost of useable energy than BEVs. The FCEVs had a usable energy cost of between USD FCEVs had a
greater
1.6 andcost of useable
2.1/kWh, energythe
whereas than
BEV BEVs. The between
cost was FCEVs had USDa usable
0.70 andenergy cost of
0.90/kWh between
[68]. Another
USD 1,6 and
study 2,1 /kWh,
analyzed whereas
the cost the and
of BEVs BEVFCEVs
cost was between
in the UnitedUSD 0.70and
States andconcluded
0.90 /kWhthat[68].the
Another
FCEVsstudyhad aanalyzed theofcost
greater cost of BEVs
useable andthan
energy FCEVsthe in the United
BEVs. The FCEVStates
hadand concluded
an energy cost of
that the FCEVs had a greater cost
USD 1.7–2.3/kWh, whereas the BEV had anof useable energy cost of USD 1.0–1.3/kWh [69]. an
than the BEVs. The FCEV had
energy cost of USD 1.7–2.3 /kWh, whereas the BEV had an energy cost of USD 1.0–1.3
/kWh [69].
Research comparing the cost of usable energy for a BEV with an FCEV in China de-
termined that the FCEV had a lower cost of useful energy. The FCEVs had an energy cost
Energies 2023, 16, 3230 11 of 16

Research comparing the cost of usable energy for a BEV with an FCEV in China deter-
mined that the FCEV had a lower cost of useful energy. The FCEVs had an energy cost of
USD 0.69 to 0.75/kWh, whereas the BEVs had an energy cost of USD 0.77 to 0.84/kWh [70].
A cost comparison of BEVs and FCEVs in Japan revealed that the FCEVs’ cost of useful
energy was more than that of the BEV. The FCEVs had an energy cost of between USD
1.6 and 2.4/kWh, whereas the BEV cost between USD 1 and 1.5/kWh [71]. One research
compared the USD/kWh cost of useful energy for propelling battery electric vehicles (BEVs)
versus fuel-cell electric cars (FCEVs). The study indicated that the cost of useful energy for
FCEVs was always more than for BEVs due to the additional expenses of manufacturing
and transporting hydrogen fuel [72].
Considering the cost of hydrogen production and transport infrastructure, another
research assessed the future cost of hydrogen fuel-cell cars in comparison to battery electric
vehicles. The study concluded that although the initial cost of FCEVs is now greater than
that of BEVs, it is anticipated to fall with time and finally become equivalent. Even as
renewable energy becomes more prevalent, the cost of manufacturing and distributing
hydrogen for FCEVs is projected to remain greater than the cost of electricity [73].
According to Bloomberg New Energy Finance, assuming these prices continue to
decline, green hydrogen may be generated for USD 0.70 to USD 1.60 per kilogram in most
of the world by 2050, a price comparable to that of natural gas [74]. However, even with
this optimistic scenario, it is hard to compete with the prices for electricity from renewable
energy as it is currently less than USD 0.005/kWh, and it is predicted to fall even further.
Hydrogen cars will not compete with electric cars.
Recent studies on the cost of useful energy for BEVs and FCEVs. For example, a
2020 study by the IEA found that the cost of useful energy for BEVs had declined in
recent years, with costs ranging from USD 0.03/kWh to USD 0.12/kWh, depending on
the efficiency of the vehicle and the cost of electricity. The IEA also found that the cost of
useful energy for FCEVs was typically higher than for BEVs, ranging from USD 0.06/kWh
to USD 0.20/kWh, depending on the efficiency of the vehicle and the cost of hydrogen
fuel [75]. These estimates are based on average costs and may vary depending on specific
circumstances, such as regional differences in electricity or hydrogen fuel prices.
The electric car market has grown rapidly in recent years, driven by increasing con-
sumer demand for clean transportation and government incentives. Major automakers,
including Tesla, Nissan, and Chevrolet, have launched electric car models with increasing
range and capabilities, making electric cars more practical for everyday use. The charg-
ing infrastructure for electric cars is also expanding, with many cities investing in public
charging networks and private companies installing chargers in various locations, such
as shopping centers and parking lots. This growing infrastructure, combined with the
rapid decrease in battery technology costs due to the learning curve, has made electric cars
increasingly affordable and competitive with traditional gasoline-powered vehicles [76].
In contrast, the hydrogen fuel cell vehicle (FCV) market is still in its early stages, with
limited infrastructure and high production costs. Despite this, some countries, such as Japan
and Germany, have made significant investments in hydrogen fuel cell technology and
infrastructure and are working to promote the adoption of FCVs. The high cost of hydrogen
fuel cell technology is a significant barrier to market penetration, but some experts believe
that the cost will decrease over time as production volume increases. Hydrogen FCVs have
a more extended driving range than battery electric vehicles (BEVs) and can be refueled in
minutes, similar to gasoline vehicles. This makes them a potential option for specific niche
markets, such as long-haul trucking, where their more extended driving range and faster
refueling times may be advantageous [77,78].
The electric car market is expected to play a significant role in the future of personal
transportation, driven by increasing consumer demand and the rapid decrease in battery
technology costs. The hydrogen fuel cell vehicle market is still in its early stages. However,
it may have a place in specific niche markets as hydrogen fuel cell technology costs decrease
over time.
Energies 2023, 16, 3230 12 of 16

The future of trucking is still uncertain, with battery electric vehicles (BEVs) and
hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles (FCVs) being explored as options. BEVs have the advantage of
being powered by batteries that are becoming increasingly efficient and affordable. Many
sizeable commercial truck makers have started developing electric truck models with
extended ranges suitable for long-haul transportation. However, hydrogen FCVs also have
the potential to play a role in the future of trucking, particularly for long-haul operations.
FCVs have a more extended driving range than BEVs, and the hydrogen fuel can be refueled
in minutes, similar to gasoline vehicles. This makes them a potential option for specific
niche markets, such as long-haul trucking, where their more extended driving range and
faster refueling times may be advantageous. The future of trucking will likely involve a mix
of both BEVs and FCVs, depending on the specific needs of the operations. BEVs will likely
be used for shorter hauls, while FCVs may be better suited for longer-haul operations.
The need for environmentally friendly power sources in technologies connected to au-
tomobiles is continuously growing due to the damaging effects of toxic emissions produced
by internal combustion engines. The technologies that are now available for environ-
mentally friendly automobiles continue to advance. This article will discuss electric and
hydrogen vehicles and their many different variants. It will also compare electric and
hydrogen vehicles and address whether they will ultimately replace electric automobiles.
It seems doubtful that fuel cell vehicles will be able to compete with the economies of scale
offered by battery automobiles. The price of electric cars and the charging infrastructure’s
performance are expected to continue falling while improving. FCEVs will decrease their
market share in the automotive passenger sector as BEVs continue to make technological
strides forward. Since we have already invested significant money into hydrogen-powered
vehicles, many current investments adhere to the sunk cost fallacy.
FCEVs are significantly more expensive than BEVs, whose costs are falling more
rapidly. The energy content of hydrogen is approximately 33.6 kWh, and the overall energy
efficiency is almost half that of BEVs; the running cost for FCEVs will begin to compete with
BEVs when the cost of hydrogen falls below USD 1.5/kWh, assuming the cost of electricity
from renewable energy sources is approximately USD 0.1/kWh; however, if the cost of
electricity is USD 0.05/kWh, hydrogen cars will not be able to compete with electric cars.
The learning curve concept refers to the decrease in the cost of production for a
particular technology over time as more units are produced, and the technology becomes
more mature. This can have a significant impact on the market penetration of technology.
In the case of electric cars, the learning curve is already well underway, with the
cost of battery technology decreasing rapidly as the production volume of electric cars
increases. This, combined with the development of charging infrastructure, has made
electric cars increasingly competitive with traditional gasoline-powered vehicles. As a
result, many automakers are investing heavily in electric vehicle technology and predicting
that electric cars will play a significant role in the future of personal transportation. In
contrast, the hydrogen fuel-cell vehicle (FCV) market is still in its early stages, with limited
infrastructure and high production costs. However, some experts believe that the cost of
hydrogen FCV technology will decrease as production volume increases and that hydrogen
FCVs may become competitive with BEVs in specific niche markets where their more
extended driving range and faster refueling times are advantageous. Electric cars are
currently more competitive in the market due to the rapid decrease in battery technology
costs and the growing charging infrastructure.
It is unclear how the ongoing conflict between Ukraine and Russia will impact the
use of hydrogen technology. Wars and conflicts can negatively impact economies and
technological development, diverting resources and attention away from technological
advancement and deployment. However, it is also possible that the conflict could lead to
increased investment in hydrogen technology to reduce dependence on fossil fuels and
improve energy security. It is important to note that hydrogen technology deployment
is a complex issue influenced by many factors, including technological developments,
government policies, and economic considerations. While the conflict in Ukraine and
Energies 2023, 16, 3230 13 of 16

Russia may have some impact, it is likely just one of many factors that will influence future
hydrogen technology use.
The recent cost increase can be attributed to Europe’s over-dependence on fossil fuels
in general and Russian gas in particular. A significant increase in renewable energy sources
would be the most effective solution to this problem. This is the only proper way that
Europe can ensure its energy supply in an environment that is becoming increasingly
unstable geopolitically. It would not only bring down power costs in the medium and long
term, but it would also bring down electricity prices in the short term.

3. Conclusions
Fuel-cell electric vehicles (FCEVs), sometimes called passenger cars, no longer play
as significant a role in the passenger transportation sector as they previously did due to
technological improvements. Many present investments in hydrogen automobiles appear
to be directed by the sunk cost fallacy, which claims that we have already spent a substantial
amount of money creating this technology. However, because economies of scale are already
in place for batteries and electric vehicles, and charging infrastructure will get cheaper and
better soon, it is doubtful that fuel cell cars will be able to compete.
The cost of owning a fuel-cell truck would be higher than that of a battery-powered
car that can be charged at a high capacity. Moreover, truck operational expenses are more
critical than cars, making a case for fuel-cell electric vehicles even weaker. Despite this,
hydrogen-powered vehicles may be advantageous for transporting heavy loads in sparsely
populated areas. The challenge lies in determining whether these specialized markets
are large enough to drive the commercialization and cost-effectiveness of fuel-cell electric
trucks and the required supporting infrastructure. By 2030, carbon-neutral biofuels or
renewable synthetic fuels may be an option for powering such applications, depending on
the market demand for these niche areas. Such vehicles will never be able to compete in the
market for low-carbon road transportation until truck manufacturers begin mass-producing
fuel cell trucks as soon as feasible to reduce production costs. Politicians and business
leaders need to decide as soon as possible if the market for fuel-cell electric trucks is big
enough to justify more research and development into hydrogen technology or if it is time
to give up and focus on other possibilities.
The need for clean power sources in vehicle technology is increasing due to the neg-
ative consequences of toxic emissions from internal combustion engines. Electric and
hydrogen vehicles are the two leading eco-friendly automobile technologies being devel-
oped. This article investigated whether hydrogen vehicles will replace electric vehicles. The
results showed that fuel-cell cars are unlikely to compete with electric cars due to the cost
reductions and performance improvements in electric vehicles and charging infrastructure.
However, hydrogen vehicles may be helpful for heavy transport in remote areas, yet the
market for fuel-cell electric trucks is limited, and their use cases are much more limited
compared to battery-powered electric trucks. In conclusion, hydrogen vehicles will not
replace electric vehicles before 2050.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.A.; methodology, A.A.; software, A.J.; validation, M.J.,
A.A. and F.M.-A.; formal analysis, A.A.; investigation, A.A.; resources, A.J. and F.M.-A.; data curation,
A.A.; writing—original draft preparation, A.A.; writing—review and editing, A.A., A.J. and F.M.-A.;
visualization, A.A. and A.J.; supervision, F.M.-A.; funding acquisition, A.J. and F.M.-A. All authors
have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received support from the the Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation
and Universities under the programme “Proyectos de I+D de Generacion de Conocimiento” of the
national programme for the generation of scientific and technological knowledge and strengthening
of the R+D+I system through grant number PGC2018-098813-B-C33 and by UAL-FEDER 2020,
Ref. UAL2020-TIC-A2080.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Energies 2023, 16, 3230 14 of 16

Acknowledgments: The authors acknowledge German Jordanian University, An-Najah National

University, and the Department of Engineering, University of Almeria.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Albatayneh, A. Potential of Using WVO for a Restaurant EV Charging Station. Environ. Clim. Technol. 2022, 26, 392–405.
[CrossRef]
2. Tashtoush, G.M.; Al-Widyan, M.I.; Albatayneh, A.M. Factorial analysis of diesel engine performance using different types of
biofuels. J. Environ. Manag. 2007, 84, 401–411. [CrossRef]
3. Griffiths, S.; Sovacool, B.K.; Kim, J.; Bazilian, M.; Uratani, J.M. Industrial decarbonization via hydrogen: A critical and systematic
review of developments, socio-technical systems and policy options. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2021, 80, 102208. [CrossRef]
4. Ade, P.A.; Aghanim, N.; Arnaud, M.; Ashdown, M.; Aumont, J.; Baccigalupi, C.; Banday, A.J.; Barreiro, R.B.; Bartlett, J.G.;
Bartolo, N.; et al. Planck 2015 results-xiii. cosmological parameters. Astron. Astrophys. 2016, 594, A13.
5. National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Hydrogen. Available online: https://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/about/fs2
1grc.html (accessed on 26 August 2019).
6. Encyclopædia Britannica. Hydrogen (H). Available online: https://www.britannica.com/science/hydrogen (accessed on
27 January 2021).
7. Thekkenthiruthummal Kunjumon, R.; Cheruvil Baby, R. Feasibility Study of Green Hydrogen PowerGeneration in Kavaratti
Island, India [Internet] [Dissertation]. 2021. Available online: http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:hh:diva-44617 (accessed
on 22 January 2023).
8. Taibi, E.; Miranda, R.; Carmo, M.; Blanco, H. Green Hydrogen Cost Reduction; International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA):
Masdar City, United Arab Emirates, 2020.
9. International Renewable Energy Agency. Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2019. 2020. Available online: https://www.irena.
org/publications/2020/Jun/Renewable-Power-Costs-in-2019 (accessed on 22 January 2023).
10. Bloomberg, N.E.F. New Energy Outlook 2020. 2020. Available online: https://about.bnef.com/new-energy-outlook/ (accessed
on 22 January 2023).
11. Biden, J. The Biden Plan to Build a Modern, Sustainable Infrastructure and an Equitable Clean Energy Future; The Democratic National
Committee: Washington, DC, USA, 2020.
12. Zhongming, Z.; Linong, L.; Xiaona, Y.; Wangqiang, Z.; Wei, L. DOE Announces New Lab Consortia to Advance Hydrogen and Fuel Cell
R&D; Department of Energy: Washington, DC, USA, 2020.
13. US Department of Energy. DOE Announces $64.7 Million to Advance Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies. Available
online: https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/articles/department-energy-hydrogen-and-fuel-cells-program-plan (accessed
on 18 August 2021).
14. US Department of Energy. Department of Energy to Invest Up to $52.5 Million for Advanced Fuel Cell Technologies Research
and Development. Available online: https://www.energy.gov/eere/amo/articles/doe-announces-525-million-accelerate-prog
ress-clean-hydrogen (accessed on 28 May 2021).
15. European Commission. A Hydrogen Strategy for a Climate-Neutral Europe. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/energy/topi
cs/energy-strategy/hydrogen-strategy_en.htm (accessed on 22 January 2023).
16. S&P Global Platts. Green Hydrogen Projects Set to Boom in 2021 as Investment Surges. Available online: https://www.spglobal
.com/commodityinsights/en/market-insights/topics/hydrogen (accessed on 21 January 2021).
17. Forbes. Chile Unveils Ambitious Plan to Create World’s Largest Green Hydrogen Production Base. Available online:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/arielcohen/2020/10/01/chile-unveils-ambitious-plan-to-create-worlds-largest-green-hydro
gen-production-base/?sh=463537a7627f (accessed on 1 October 2020).
18. The Federal Government. National Hydrogen Strategy. Available online: https://www.dcceew.gov.au/energy/publications/au
stralias-national-hydrogen-strategy (accessed on 10 June 2020).
19. Hydrogen Energy Ministerial Meeting. Joint Statement on Hydrogen Energy Ministerial Meeting. Available online: https://www.cl
eanenergyministerial.org/news-room/ (accessed on 3 March 2021).
20. Australian Government. Australia’s National Hydrogen Strategy. Available online: https://www.dcceew.gov.au/sites/default/
files/documents/australias-national-hydrogen-strategy.pdf (accessed on 17 November 2020).
21. Reuters. Saudi Arabia Launches $5 Billion Green Hydrogen Initiative. Available online: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-e
nergy-hydrogen-explainer-idUKKBN28K3DA (accessed on 1 March 2021).
22. European Commission. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social
Committee and the Committee of the Regions. A Hydrogen Strategy for a Climate-Neutral Europe; Brussels, 8.7.2020 com(2020) 301 Final;
EN: Brussels, Belgium, 2021. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/hydrogen_strategy.pdf (accessed
on 22 January 2023).
23. International Energy Agency. The Future of Hydrogen: Seizing Today’s Opportunities. 2019. Available online: https://www.iea.
org/reports/the-future-of-hydrogen (accessed on 22 January 2023).
Energies 2023, 16, 3230 15 of 16

24. Hydrogen Council. Path to Hydrogen Competitiveness: A Cost Perspective. 2020. Available online: https://hydrogencouncil.co
m/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Path-to-Hydrogen-Competitiveness_Full-Study-1.pdf (accessed on 22 January 2023).
25. IRENA. Green Hydrogen: A Guide to Policy Making. 2020. Available online: https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/
Agency/Publication/2020/Nov/IRENA_Green_hydrogen_policy_2020.pdf (accessed on 23 January 2023).
26. Hydrogen Council. Hydrogen Scaling Up. 2017. Available online: https://hydrogencouncil.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11
/Hydrogen-scaling-up-Hydrogen-Council.pdf (accessed on 24 January 2023).
27. Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions. US EPA. 2021. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhous
e-gas-emissions#:~:text=Greenhouse%20gas%20emissions%20from%20transportation,ships%2C%20trains%2C%20and%20pla
nes.&text=Approximately%2062%20percent%20of%20our,coal%20and%20natural%20gas.3 (accessed on 11 December 2022).
28. US Department of Energy. How Fuel Cells Work. In Energy.gov; 2021. Available online: https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcell
s/fuel-cells#:~:text=How%20Fuel%20Cells%20Work,)%E2%80%94sandwiched%20around%20an%20electrolyte (accessed on
27 January 2023).
29. Cho, R. Why We Need Green Hydrogen. 2021. Available online: https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2021/01/07/need-green-
hydrogen/#:~:text=The%20challenges%20of%20green%20hydrogen&text=However%2C%20low%20concentrations%20of%20
hydrogen,is%20a%20positive%20safety%20feature (accessed on 11 December 2022).
30. Tashie-Lewis, B.C.; Nnabuife, S.G. Hydrogen production, distribution, storage and power conversion in a hydrogen economy—A
technology review. Chem. Eng. J. Adv. 2021, 8, 100172. [CrossRef]
31. Viyanit, E.; Keawkumsai, S.; Wongpinkeaw, K.; Bunchoo, N.; Khonraeng, W.; Trachoo, T.; Boellinghaus, T. Hydrogen assisted
cracking of an AISI 321 stainless steel seamless pipe exposed to hydrogen-containing hot gas at high pressure. Eng. Fail. Anal.
2019, 100, 288–299. [CrossRef]
32. Mohammed, H.; Al-Othman, A.; Nancarrow, P.; Tawalbeh, M.; Assad, M.E. Direct hydrocarbon fuel cells: A promising technology
for improving energy efficiency. Energy 2019, 172, 207–219. [CrossRef]
33. Manoharan, Y.; Hosseini, S.E.; Butler, B.; Alzhahrani, H.; Senior, B.T.; Ashuri, T.; Krohn, J. Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles; current
status and future prospect. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 2296. [CrossRef]
34. van Renssen, S. The hydrogen solution? Nat. Clim. Chang. 2020, 10, 799–801. [CrossRef]
35. US Hydrogen Road Map—Fuel Cell & Hydrogen Energy Association. 2021. Available online: https://www.fchea.org/us-hydro
gen-study (accessed on 11 December 2022).
36. Jaradat, M.; Alsotary, O.; Juaidi, A.; Albatayneh, A.; Alzoubi, A.; Gorjian, S. Potential of Producing Green Hydrogen in Jordan.
Energies 2022, 15, 9039. [CrossRef]
37. Plötz, P. Hydrogen technology is unlikely to play a major role in sustainable road transport. Nat. Electron. 2022, 5, 8–10. [CrossRef]
38. Wang, Y.; Cheng, X. Advantages and challenges of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. Energy Convers. Manag. 2016, 121, 19–26.
39. Bridle, I.; Hoekstra, R.; Junginger, M. A review of the current status and future prospects of electric vehicles. Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 2019, 107, 401–416.
40. Lammert, M.; Bøhmer, T.; Fjellestad, J. Hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles: Current state and future prospects. Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 2018, 82, 816–833.
41. Kenny, J.K.; Breske, S.; Singstock, N.R. Hydrogen-powered vehicles for autonomous ride-hailing fleets. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy
2022, 47, 9422–9427. [CrossRef]
42. Brunet, J.; Kotelnikova, A.; Ponssard, J.P. The deployment of BEV and FCEV in 2015. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Economics,
Ecole Polytechnique, CNRS, Palaiseau, France, 2015.
43. Battery Electric vs. Hydrogen—Which Is the Future for Electric Vehicles? Available online: https://www.lexology.com/library
/detail.aspx?g=1bf1cbf0-ac2f-4b39-a3de-2df77a9a515e (accessed on 5 December 2022).
44. Gnann, T.; Plötz, P.; Kühn, A.; Wietschel, M. How to decarbonise heavy road transport. Accessed Novemb. 2017, 16, 2020.
45. Chakraborty, S.; Kumar, N.M.; Jayakumar, A.; Dash, S.K.; Elangovan, D. Selected Aspects of Sustainable Mobility Reveals
Implementable Approaches and Conceivable Actions. Sustainability 2021, 13, 12918. [CrossRef]
46. Birol, F. The Future of Hydrogen: Seizing Today’s Opportunities; IEA Report Prepared for the G; IEA: Paris, France, 2019; p. 20.
47. Council, H. IEA Hydrogen TCP refocuses on hydrogen use, wider collaboration. Fuel Cells Bull. 2020, 2020, 14.
48. Steward, D.; Ramsden, T.; Zuboy, J. H2A Production Model, Version 2 User Guide; National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL):
Golden, CO, USA, 2008.
49. Bloomberg, N.E.F. Battery Prices and Market Development. 2020. Available online: https://www.energy-storage.news/bloomber
gnef-average-battery-pack-prices-to-drop-below-us100-kwh-by-2024-despite-near-term-spikes/ (accessed on 27 January 2023).
50. Martin, J. Fueling a Clean Transportation Future: Smart Fuel Choices for a Warming World. Union of Concerned Scientists. 2016.
Available online: https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2016/02/Fueling-Clean-Transportation-Future-full-rep
ort.pdf (accessed on 27 March 2023).
51. Beaudet, A.; Larouche, F.; Amouzegar, K.; Bouchard, P.; Zaghib, K. Key challenges and opportunities for recycling electric vehicle
battery materials. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5837. [CrossRef]
52. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. The Cost of Automotive Fuel Cell Stacks for Transportation. 2020. Available online:
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/79617.pdf (accessed on 27 January 2023).
53. Minutillo, M.; Perna, A.; Forcina, A.; Di Micco, S.; Jannelli, E. Analyzing the levelized cost of hydrogen in refueling stations with
on-site hydrogen production via water electrolysis in the Italian scenario. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2021, 46, 13667–13677. [CrossRef]
Energies 2023, 16, 3230 16 of 16

54. Dash, S.K.; Ray, P.K. Photovoltaic tied unified power quality conditioner topology based on a novel notch filter utilized control
algorithm for power quality improvement. Trans. Inst. Meas. Control 2019, 41, 1912–1922. [CrossRef]
55. Ala, G.; Castiglia, V.; Di Filippo, G.; Miceli, R.; Romano, P.; Viola, F. From electric mobility to hydrogen mobility: Current state
and possible future expansions. In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE 20th Mediterranean Electrotechnical Conference (MELECON),
Palermo, Italy, 16–18 June 2020; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2020; pp. 1–6.
56. Fuel Cell Technologies Office. Fuel Cells 2015. Available online: https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/articles/fuel-cell-techn
ologies-office-2015-recap-and-year-ahead (accessed on 5 December 2022).
57. EU Commission. European Commission Press Release 2018 Database. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/pres
scorner/detail/en/IP_18_3708 (accessed on 5 December 2022).
58. Albatayneh, A.; Assaf, M.N.; Alterman, D.; Jaradat, M. Comparison of the overall energy efficiency for internal combustion
engine vehicles and electric vehicles. Rigas Teh. Univ. Zinat. Raksti 2020, 24, 669–680. [CrossRef]
59. Moro, A.; Lonza, L. Electricity carbon intensity in European Member States: Impacts on GHG emissions of electric vehicles.
Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2018, 64, 5–14. [CrossRef]
60. Harrison, G.; Gómez Vilchez, J.J.; Thiel, C. Industry strategies for the promotion of E-mobility under alternative policy and
economic scenarios. Eur. Transp. Res. Rev. 2018, 10, JRC107869. [CrossRef]
61. Hydrogen or Battery? A Clear Case, Until Further Notice. Volkswagen Website. 2019. Available online: https://www.volkswag
enag.com/en/news/stories/2019/08/hydrogen-or-battery--that-is-the-question.html (accessed on 4 December 2022).
62. RP. Hydrogen Trucks ‘Unable to Compete’ on Cost with Fully-Electric in Race to Decarbonise Road Freight, Recharge. 2022.
Available online: https://www.rechargenews.com/energy-transition/hydrogen-trucks-unable-to-compete-on-cost-with-full
y-electric-in-race-to-decarbonise-road-freight/2-1-1298414 (accessed on 29 January 2023).
63. Schoots, K.; Ferioli, F.; Kramer, G.J.; Van der Zwaan, B.C. Learning curves for hydrogen production technology: An assessment of
observed cost reductions. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2008, 33, 2630–2645. [CrossRef]
64. Schmidt, O.; Hawkes, A.; Gambhir, A.; Staffell, I. The future cost of electrical energy storage based on experience rates. Nat.
Energy 2017, 6, 17110. [CrossRef]
65. Hydrogen Insights A Perspective on Hydrogen Investment, Market Development (No Date). Available online: https://hydrogen
council.com/en/hydrogen-insights-2021/ (accessed on 29 January 2023).
66. Visualizing the Freefall in Electric Vehicle Battery Prices, M.I.N.I.N.G.C.O.M. 2021. Available online: https://www.mining.com
/web/visualizing-the-freefall-in-electric-vehicle-battery-prices/#:~:text=According%20to%20Wright’s%20Law%2C%20also,c
umulative%20doubling%20of%20units%20produced (accessed on 29 January 2023).
67. Shahan, B.Z. Chart: Why Battery Electric Vehicles Beat Hydrogen Electric Vehicles without Breaking a Sweat, CleanTechnica.
2021. Available online: https://cleantechnica.com/2021/02/01/chart-why-battery-electric-vehicles-beat-hydrogen-electric-
vehicles-without-breaking-a-sweat/ (accessed on 30 January 2023).
68. Hydrogen Economy Outlook—Data.Bloomberglp.Com (No Date). Available online: https://data.bloomberglp.com/professional/si
tes/24/BNEF-Hydrogen-Economy-Outlook-Key-Messages-30-Mar-2020.pdf?__ac_lkid=5394-618-c9f4-d98175ba2ab2c7 (accessed on
30 January 2023).
69. Aguilar, P.; Groß, B. Battery electric vehicles and fuel cell electric vehicles, an analysis of alternative powertrains as a mean to
decarbonise the transport sector. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 2022, 53, 102624.
70. Wipke, K.; Sprik, S.; Kurtz, J.; Ramsden, T.; Ainscough, C.; Saur, G. National Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle Learning Demonstration Final
Report; NREL: Golden, CO, USA, 2012.
71. Offer, G.J.; Howey, D.; Contestabile, M.; Clague, R.; Brandon, N.P. Comparative analysis of battery electric, hydrogen fuel cell and
hybrid vehicles in a future sustainable road transport system. Energy Policy 2010, 38, 24–29. [CrossRef]
72. Feng, Y.; Yang, J.; Dong, Z. Fuel selections for electrified vehicles: A well-to-wheel analysis. World Electr. Veh. J. 2021, 12, 151.
[CrossRef]
73. Cox, B.; Bauer, C.; Beltran, A.M.; van Vuuren, D.P.; Mutel, C.L. Life cycle environmental and cost comparison of current and
future passenger cars under different energy scenarios. Appl. Energy 2020, 269, 115021. [CrossRef]
74. Liu, Z.; Song, J.; Kubal, J.; Susarla, N.; Knehr, K.W.; Islam, E.; Nelson, P.; Ahmed, S. Comparing total cost of ownership of battery
electric vehicles and internal combustion engine vehicles. Energy Policy 2021, 158, 112564. [CrossRef]
75. IEA. Global EV Outlook 2020. 2020. Available online: https://www.iea.org/reports/global-ev-outlook-2020 (accessed on 27
January 2023).
76. KPMG. Electric Vehicle Outlook 2020; KPMG: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2020.
77. Liu, Y.; Li, Y.; Li, Z. A review of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles: Current status and future prospects. Energy 2021, 214, 118611.
[CrossRef]
78. Wang, X.; Cheng, L. Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles: A review of technical challenges and research progress. Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev. 2020, 140, 110491. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.