Battery-electric advocate Scania, Cummins developing 20 fuel-cell-electric trucks for HyTrucks project
Honda to invest $40B over 10 years in electrification and software; launching 30 EV models by 2030; > 2M units p.a.

Hylane GmbH buys 18 Hyzon fuel-cell-electric trucks

Hylane GmbH, a wholly owned subsidiary of DEVK Versicherung, one of Germany’s largest motor insurers, has purchased 18 fuel-cell-electric trucks from Hyzon Motors, with deliveries expected to begin in late 2022.

Under Hylane’s sustainable mobility model, fleet owners can deploy Hyzon vehicles in their operations through a rental agreement with Hylane. Further, it is expected that customers will only pay for the miles actually driven; Hylane plans to cover maintenance or downtime costs. Through this pay-per-use approach, Hylane expects to minimize the risk for customers while accelerating the rate at which zero-emission vehicles replace diesel.


Hyzon’s HYMAX, sold in Europe, is available in 24-, 46- and 70-tonne configurations. Hyzon also plans a Class 6 fuel-cell-electric truck for the European market.

Hylane has already confirmed rental contracts for the first vehicles and is in talks with numerous prominent transport companies interested in transitioning their fleets to zero-emission options.

Germany is expected to be one of the major global markets for zero-emission commercial vehicle technologies in the coming years. Germany recently announced support for a total ban on sales of combustion engine cars from 2035, and there are already significant domestic incentives in place to transition heavy vehicles off diesel.

To support its exclusive focus on climate-friendly transport solutions, Hylane is aligning key elements within the value chain, including energy producers, refueling infrastructure providers, and government subsidy programs. Through the coordinated management of these resources, Hylane aims to provide sustainable and flexible mobility management to its customers.

Hyzon recognizes that, as with any new technology, customers need the chance to utilize our fuel cell electric vehicle in their regular operations. From past experience, we are confident that once fleet owners have experienced our vehicles, they will be motivated to hasten their transition to zero-emissions. Having a strong partner in the German market has the opportunity to fuel significant long-term growth for Hyzon.

—Craig Knight, Hyzon CEO and co-founder

Hyzon focuses exclusively on the commercial vehicle market, with a near-term focus on back to base (captive fleet) operations, for its fuel-cell vehicles. Utilizing its proven and proprietary hydrogen fuel cell technology, Hyzon aims to supply zero-emission heavy duty trucks and buses to customers in North America, Europe and around the world.



H2 is 11 times worse on the atmosphere than CO2;
H2 for ground transportation makes no sense; me think behind every one of these projects is a big oil connection pushing for reforming H2 from raw methane.



Do try reading, and who knows? perhaps even beginning to understand your own links, difficult though that is through your wall of prejudice.

From your link:

'Does this mean "green hydrogen" should be avoided in the race to zero emissions?

No. The UK Government report explains that "the increase in equivalent CO2 emissions based on 1 percent and 10 percent H2 leakage rate offsets approximately 0.4 and 4 percent of the total equivalent CO2 emission reductions, respectively," so even assuming the worst leakage scenario, it's still an enormous improvement.

"Whilst the benefits from equivalent CO2 emission reductions significantly outweigh the disbenefits arising from H2 leakage," it continues, "they clearly demonstrate the importance of controlling H2 leakage within a hydrogen economy."'

Plainly this is an issue which needs controlling.

Equally plainly you are grossly exaggerating it, so that your sweeping rejection of whole vast areas of technology can be meretriciously denied any merit.

Everything has some downsides, that is how things work.

Franck Mazeyrat

Hardly any comparison has you can see with the link you provided,between the small leakages from transportation,storage and fueling of Hydrogen.You have to keep in mind the overwhelming advantages of a fuel which is never burnt,it's the end of the combustion age as it was the end of the stone age.
Thanks to hydrogen converted in a Fuel Cell,you avoid

- Green house Emissions
- Toxic gas emissions for Health
- Particulates Emissions also toxic for Health
- Heat Emissions (500 ° F at the pipe, between 60 ° to 80° for a HFC
- Oxygen depletion (X 2000 times in volume of the gas consumed !)

As said Bill Gates in how to avoid a climate disaster ,the case for Zero Emission is rock solid !


I do not think that hydrogen leakage is the problem. The problem with hydrogen is the energy consumption. Either you have green hydrogen is is mostly electrolysis from renewables which uses at least 2-3 times the energy of batteries or you have hydrogen from steam reformation of natural gas. From most of what I have read, "blue" hydrogen with carbon capture is a big petroleum scam. Currently, Germany has a major energy problem so why are they looking at hydrogen fuel cell trucks. Maybe if you had high temperature generation of hydrogen using fast nuclear reactors, it would be OK. Even high temperature electrolysis using existing light water reactors would be better but Germany also wants to get rid of all of their nuclear energy.



The problem with the sort of comparison you are making is that it is not like for like, and seeks to equate two storage media with utterly different profiles.

Batteries are shorter term, and the energy embodied in mining their components is non-trivial.

A lot of the energy used in the production of hydrogen would otherwise be simply thrown away, from many sources, with aside from industrial waste which is often vented, renewables at a high percentage of the grid inherently entailing excess production, which can be stored as hydrogen and other chemicals, but not for the longer term in batteries at any acceptable cost.

And the energy needed to produce hydrogen can be greatly reduced by using industrial waste heat to enhance the electrolysis, quite apart from the several other more energy efficient possible processes.

Many areas are near impossible to decarbonise without recourse to hydrogen, and that almost all heavy freight companies are looking to hydrogen rather than batteries for longer distances and heavier loads should tell us something, as they are not simply innumerate fools.

Germany is planning large scale imports of hydrogen from areas of strong sunshine and wind, which are more widely distributed than fossil fuel resources.

I'd like nuclear too, but it is very far from being the only way to generate hydrogen, with ever increasing economic efficiency.

Here is a comprehensive analysis of the energy transition, and the guys are keen on using electricity without going through the stage of hydrogen or other chemical conversion etc, but it is clear that huge areas still need massive amounts of hydrogen, and that being the case, to me it hardly makes sense to rule it out completely in more grey areas:


The existing problem with H2 production is the difference between how it could be produced and how it is actually produced. Industry is interested in the conventional production which implicates waste of REs and other resources. A "fast buck" is more attractive than investments that demand a high financial tribute. The bean counters always manage an upper hand on the contrary to clean and disturbing solutions.
If these "carpet baggers" are not forced by law to behave in a certain manner they'll just do what is opportune for them.
"John Doe" is dependent on industry and always pays the final bill. Its really a pity that most people do not know what constitutes true independence.



' The existing problem with H2 production is the difference between how it could be produced and how it is actually produced. '

Ditto electricity and ditto fuel for transport including cars and trucks.

What is your point?

You simply fancy some ways forward and seek to dismiss all others, and dig up any excuse to do so.


Making hydrogen from natural gas then putting the carbon dioxide back in the round is fine.
Use the hydrogen in fuel cells, no combustion pollution.

The comments to this entry are closed.