TotalEnergies to invest $600M to boost E&P activites in Congo in 2024
Ohio State/Wilberforce University team takes home first place in year two of the EcoCAR EV Challenge

Prologis/Maersk launch 9 MW depot that can charge 96 heavy-duty trucks simultaneously

Prologis and Performance Team – A Maersk Company, launched Southern California’s largest heavy-duty electric vehicle (EV) charging depot, located near the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach and powered by the nation’s largest EV truck microgrid.

Located directly off the Harbor (110) Freeway in Los Angeles on Denker Avenue, and within five miles of Interstate 405 and California State Route 91 (SR91), the Denker charging depot will have the ability to charge up to 96 EV trucks simultaneously. Prologis and Performance Team constructed the facility in just five months. Performance Team will be using its fleet of Volvo VNR Electric trucks which have a range of 240 miles and can charge up to 80% in 90 minutes.


Against the backdrop of California’s requirements to end the sale of diesel trucks and move to electric drayage trucks by 2035 and electric heavy-duty trucks by 2045, companies are investing in charging infrastructure to support operations. This project is a key connector in the infrastructure needed to meet the state’s goals.

While utilities work to upgrade the electrical grid, companies like Prologis and Maersk are investing heavily in California to find innovative and creative solutions that get EV trucks on the road immediately. In developing the Denker charging depot, Prologis installed the charging infrastructure to help speed up the time the project could get online and trucks could get on the road, rather than waiting up to two years for the grid upgrade.

Prologis developed an innovative charging solution, in conjunction with Mainspring Energy, to build a microgrid, which is any small network of electrical generators and loads that may be grid-connected but is capable of operating independently of the local grid.

The Prologis Denker microgrid uses 2.75 MW of fuel-flexible, gas-fired, hydrogen-ready linear generators paired with 18 MWh of batteries to provide up to 9 MW of charging capacity.

Prologis and Performance Team officials said the project delivery was expedited due to a strong partnership with the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, which enabled long-term design and planning, the City of Los Angeles, which permitted the project, and Southern California Gas Co., which powered the microgrid with natural gas.

The Denker charging depot is the third Southern California commercial truck EV charging project Prologis Mobility and Performance Team have opened together. Performance Team facilities in Santa Fe Springs and Commerce, equipped with Prologis Mobility charging infrastructure, provide 4 MW of charging capacity—enough to charge 38 electric trucks.

Performance Team is a Maersk company that operates more than 140 electric vehicles across the United States. Prologis, Inc. is a global leader in logistics real estate with a focus on high-barrier, high-growth markets.



9 MW and 96 trucks = 94 kW / truck if all 96 are present (unlikely).
However, elsewhere we read of 1.2 MW charging for trucks.
That's quite a gap.
The devil is in the details - what is the charging capacity and total charge required for typical trucks etc.
Still, e-trucks would be a good solution for short and medium range heavy transport, whatever about long range - Hydrogen anyone?
in an ICE or fuel cells ?


If the full 96 trucks are charging from a 9MW supply, that is only around 100KW per truck, not exactly fast charging for the very large batteries in a truck.

The Volvo VNR has a 565KWh pack able to be recharged in 90 minutes to 80%:

So 452KWh in 90 minutes, which is ~300KW

Of course there will not usually be all 96 trucks charging, but at peak times any freight manager who is counting on a rapid recharge is going to be disappointed, and his schedules will be to hell.


!! Jim, great minds, or at any rate our minds ;-) think alike.
We posted more or less simultaneously!


@dave, indeed!


People here are confusing average and peak charging speeds. Yes, there would need to be some form of throttling if all 96 bays were occupied with trucks that demanded peak charging power. Such throttling is common already in many charging networks, so it's a trivial implementation.
In the real world, peak charging is only achieved for a few minutes at low states of charge (20-40%, roughly).

It's the old "what if?" meme trying to hold us back. For years we've heard "what if every EV in the country needed to charge at the same time?", which is absurd given that most EV owners only need to charge once a week. On the other hand, we know exactly what happens if too many gasoline cars want to fill-up at the same time: society quickly reverts to the stone-age! UK residents know what I mean...

Executive summary: chargers seamlessly handle the unlikely case that all 96 bays demand maximum power simultaneously. The real problem is "how do you handle 96 truckers who want to use the bathroom at the same time?" Besides, trucks never need a 100% charge. For the same reasons that you don't often see transport trucks run-out of petrol, or an airplanes run-out of fuel.


Why real trucking companies don't fancy BEVs for any route where they can't return to base to recharge is pretty obvious, however mysterious it remains to monomanical battery only enthusiasts.

Just came across this which interested me for the use of hydrogen in electric aircraft, which I suppose at least theoretically might be able to be engineered into fuel cell heavy trucks, although I doubt it for umpteen years, as weight is way, way more critical for aircraft.

Here was the start of the program in 2021:

They have got that working, at least on the ground, so have now moved on to 2MW engines:

The basic idea is that since you already have super chilly liquid hydrogen on board, why not use it to enable superconducting for your electric engine so saving oodles of weight?

From the first link:

' The three-year demonstrator project aims to show that an electric- or hybrid-electric propulsion system complemented by cryogenic and superconducting technologies can be more than 2 to 3 times lighter than a conventional system—through a reduction in cable weight and a limit of 30kW/kg in power electronics—without compromising a 97% powertrain efficiency. '

And from the second link:

' Under the Cryoprop architecture, liquid hydrogen carried in a tank on board the aircraft would be distributed to the fuel cell in the engine, while simultaneously being used to cool helium. The helium would circulate to cool the superconducting electrical transmission system and motor control unit.'

Simple, huh? ;-)

Maybe coming to a aircraft near you, in a decades or so........

Thomas Pedersen


For a 565 kWh battery, 300 kW is akin to 'trickle charging'.

Not quite, but proportional to 43 kW for my BMW i4 with it's 80.7 kWh battery. That is the 'end of charging' power level.

Start of charging is 2.5 C, which for the Volvo battery would nearly tap out a 1.2 MW Megacharger.


Davemart, are you saying that the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach aren't served by "real trucking companies"?
There's a lot more to trucking than what you learned watching Smokey and the Bandit!


Thomas, as previously mentioned, trucks never need a 100% charge. If they do, someone is incompetent and will soon be forced seek other employ.

Arguing that 9MW is too little for an edge case is exactly the same as arguing that a fuel depot has to be able to handle using all its pumps continuously at maximum flow. If that was a common use case, they would build a second depot.


Bernard said:

' People here are confusing average and peak charging speeds. '

Since I specifically mentioned and noted that the peak charging is very different to average, where the implementation looks adequate, there is no confusion, you are obfuscating.

I said:
' Of course there will not usually be all 96 trucks charging'

Where is the confusion?

It does not exist, save that which you have deliberately created in an attempt to make an entirely false point.


Davemart, your very first point was "If the full 96 trucks are charging from a 9MW supply," my point is that the people building this have considered their needs. If they foresaw needing all 96 bays charging at full speed all the time, they would have built 128 bays and higher total capacity! Your point is a "what if" that was surely considered well in advance of implementation.



Aside from the fact that I have very clearly differentiated between average and peak charging needs, when you simply claimed that I did not, there are several possible averages.

With traffic, it is very easy to miss your time, so that unexpectedly a freight truck may find themselves in delayed and hitting peak charging time, to the ruin of scheduling and considerable expense.

As for ' If they foresaw needing all 96 bays charging at full speed all the time, they would have built 128 bays and higher total capacity!' clearly that is not only very expensive, but puts a huge load on the power supply.

It all boils down to that if you are trying to move freight around at good cost professionally, away from base charging is flaky, expensive and unreliable.

As I noted, BEVs are fine when you can pretty reliably get return to base after the days run, but dubious otherwise.

As for your ' Your point is a "what if" that was surely considered well in advance of implementation.'
You do not seem keen on following exactly the same chain of logic in accepting the massive increase in deployment of hydrogen filling stations for heavy freight in Europe and especially China, or the plans of the truck building companies to produce hydrogen trucks for it as equally authoritative.

You are cherry picking.


Time is money if the trucks are charging they are not hauling freight


Here in the US there are federal regulations known as hours of service regulations which limit the number of hours a driver can drive. There are some exceptions but in general drivers are limited to a maximum of 11 hours of driving in a 14 hour window which would leave a minimum of a 10 hour window regardless of whether the truck is diesel or electric.

Trickle charging is what you want for battery health for most contemporary chemistries. This charging system includes a battery large enough to avoid demand charges or putting strain on the grid. It also includes backup generators in case the grid goes down. It could actually help supply power to the grid should there be a need thus helping to stabilize the grid and improve reliability,


I know that some commenters on this site are pushing hydrogen for transportation and there a several articles on this site in recent days suggesting that hydrogen will be used for longer range trucking. However, I sincerely doubt that this will happen for several reasons. For this to be a clean and green alternative, they hydrogen would need to be green which is relatively expensive compared to just using the electricity to charge batteries. I also believe that batteries are getting better (lower cost and greater energy storage) faster than the price of hydrogen is dropping. Add in the problems of just dealing with hydrogen with the required high pressure or extremely low temperatures and I just do not see hydrogen going anywhere other a few experimental trials. Maybe hydrogen will be used for longer range aircraft but, even here, I have my doubts as I believe shorter range aircraft will be battery powered and longer range will use SAF.

To the extent that we can make green hydrogen, just use it for green ammonia or other chemical purposes.


@sd said:

' I know that some commenters on this site are pushing hydrogen for transportation'

If I am among those you are referring to, I have with total clarity and repeatedly said that BEVs should be the preferred option for every application where they are practical, with hydrogen being used where, for instance, present batteries do not make that a goer, and away from base recharging at speed makes them very dubious.

That is hardly 'pushing hydrogen for transportation'


' I just do not see hydrogen going anywhere other a few experimental trials'

!! Hundreds of hydrogen filling stations for trucks are being built right now, in Europe and especially across China, together with hydrogen pipelines etc.
And every major truck builder is going for hydrogen for long distance and heavy loads, with umpteen billions being invested.

That is hardly ' a few experimental trials'.


'Although current hydrogen-powered, heavy-duty trucks cost around 1 million yuan (US$138,400) in China, almost triple the price of traditional trucks, their life-cycle costs, after including the charges for refuelling, will reach parity by 2027 without subsidies, driven by rapidly declining production costs and falling costs of hydrogen fuel, according to Lin.'

Experimental trials?



If long haul trucking using hydrogen happens anywhere, it will probably be China as the government can back it without the economics necessarily making sense. Toyota seems to be enthused by hydrogen so, maybe, it might happen in Japan but the distances are so small that it would not make any sense at all. Maybe Europe will try this but I doubt that it will be done on a large scale and I am extremely doubtful that it will happen in North America because the economics just do not make sense. Battery electric will take over all delivery, short haul, and medium haul as it is already cheaper than running diesel. If you have money to spend buying trucks, etc, spend it where it will pay off. Longer haul battery electric trucking will happen when the batteries get better and it makes economic sense and the charging infrastructure gets better. What Prologis and Maersk is doing is part of this. The other thing that needs to happen in North America is that more of the long haul trucking needs to go by rail and this is happening but not fast enough.

Maybe I am wrong and I can not predict the further future of technological advances but one thing I am sure of is that eventually economics will dictate the solution.


Hi sd:

I have the greatest respect for you and your comments, but I am finding it pretty tough to follow your logic on this subject!

' it might happen in Japan but the distances are so small that it would not make any sense at all.'

' I am extremely doubtful that it will happen in North America because the economics just do not make sense'

!! My understanding is that NA is a big bigger than Japan, so your criteria seem a bit variable! ;-)

Dunno really about Japan or the equally anomalous South Korea, which are both small countries, but do have very cold winters and steep terrain which is challenging for BEVs, but the future of heavy transport will not be decided there.

And Toyota although based in Japan are world wide company, with repeated and serious emphasis on providing as advanced solutions as are practicable and affordable. They are not trying to provide heavy freight solutions with their focus on Japan, and neither are any of the other big boys in freight, from Mercedes to Volvo to Kenworth, with their primarily North American focus, who think Toyota are on to something and work in association with them.

In reality, with Europe a substantial contributor, the future of heavy transport is being decided in China, where the annual production of all trucks, let alone hydrogen and fuel cell ones, is several times that in North America.

Just as Germany with extremely poor renewable resources were leading, but were hammered by China, the reality is that China is way, way ahead on both renewables and now employing them in heavy transport, and that is where the future is being laid out.

I would emphasise that just like everyone else China is going for BEVs wherever practical, but it ain't for long distance heavy, and they are moving to produce hydrogen trucks and renewables supplies for them in vast volume.

None of this is a marginal experiment, but a current reality.


China conducted its first long-distance cross-region transport test of two hydrogen-powered vehicles, said China Petrochemical Corporation (Sinopec Group), China's major oil refiner, on Friday’

The article mentions they stopped at seven fueling stations over 2 days covering approximately 900 miles. This would normally be roughly a 750 mile trip that could be completed in one day without a fueling stop. The extra mileage may have been to reach refueling stations. Perhaps testing the refueling stations was a goal of the experiment.

Also noteworthy in the article;

that they have gotten their FC cost per KW down below $550

An acknowledgment that currently China’s h2 market is policy driven. (In China non-compliance with policy can be fatal. )

The cost of H2 generated as a byproduct of industrial processes varies from the approximate equivalent of $3.5 to $10 per grange depending on region, no mention of how scaleable this source is.

This be press release is in the context of hopes of raising $100 million to continue policy compliance.

With that said I find it surprising that they that they are at this early stage of development and testing. I would have thought a class 8 trailer with a 2000-3000 km range would be a priority. The added range even if there is no production intent would be good for PR as well as to reassure investors that limited refueling infrastructure and distribution of H2 are non issues. Moreover it would permit consumers to utilize the lowest cost H2 accelerating commercial viability,



That is the formal, regulated tests.
Having extensive experience with hydrogen powered buses, they are pressing full speed ahead with hydrogen trucks.
Much the same way they did with renewables, such as off shore wind:

Note that the US does not even appear on the list.

I am no fan of President Xi and his thugs, encapsulating the worst of Chinese history, but the considerable dynamic of the country has to be noted.

If you are inclined to dismiss that as not germane, here is hydrogen produced by electrolysis by country:

Again, the US is not at the races, although hopefully the Biden measures will rectify that.

If you want to dismiss that on the grounds that batteries will power effectively all transport, here are EV volumes per country in 2023:

It is perfectly clear that there is a huge lead by China in all forms of low carbon transport.

At one time it was fairly sensible if sometimes a little annoying for folk in the US to substitute activity in the US for world progress in various technologies, just as in earlier times the UK was a reasonable stand in for progress in technology.

Now it ain't.

Low carbon energy production and transport is being led by China, and it is not possible to sensibly look at trends without putting emphasis on what it going on there.

And back to the case:

China is going for renewable hydrogen to power heavy long distance transport, and putting the industrial facilities in place to make it happen.

BEVs are for shorted distances and lighter loads.


This is a potential HYDROGEN system.
“ The Prologis Denker microgrid uses 2.75 MW of fuel-flexible, gas-fired, hydrogen-ready linear generators paired with 18 MWh of batteries to provide up to 9 MW of charging capacity.”
So, currently using natural gas from SoCalGas. However, SoCalGas could switch to Hydrogen with the “Angeles Link”, which would use either Green or Turquoise Hydrogen. The Turquoise Hydrogen could be provided by a Santa Barbara company, C-Zero which uses Methane Pyrolysis and could drive the cost of Hydrogen below $2/kg.
Page 13 of Annual Report, references C-Zero:


Last year:
“Development engineers from Mercedes-Benz Trucks have successfully completed a test run across the Alps with the battery electric eActros 600 for long-distance haulage (earlier post). The engineers drove the prototype, which had been loaded up to 40 tons, from Stuttgart to Bolzano in South Tyrol via the steep rise to the Swabian Jura mountain range at Aichelberg, Kufstein and the Brenner Highway.”
The Mercedes eActros 600 already has over 1000 orders.


Just so.
And the excellent engineers at Mercedes-Benz Trucks are also in the forefront in developing liquid hydrogen for long distance trucking:

' “Today is a great day! A hydrogen-powered truck is taking off from Rhineland-Palatinate all the way to Berlin. We are proud that such a far-reaching innovation comes out of Rhineland-Palatinate and was developed and tested at the plant in Woerth. This is testimony to the innovative spirit of Rhineland-Palatinate and will change the transport industry for good. It marks a milestone in the transformation and decarbonization of the transport sector - thanks to new technologies. The journey of the GenH2 Truck from Rhineland-Palatinate to Berlin makes this tangible.”

After the successful record run, Andreas Gorbach, Member of the Board of Management of Daimler Truck AG, Head of Truck Technology, drove the truck across the finish line in the Ministergarten in Berlin: “To decarbonize transport, we need both battery-electric and hydrogen-powered drive technologies. The sweet spot for fuel cell trucks lies in flexible and demanding long-haul transportation tasks. By cracking the 1,000-kilometer mark with one fill, we have now impressively demonstrated: Hydrogen in trucks is anything but hot air, and we are making very good progress on the road to series production. At the same time, our record run today is a reminder that decarbonizing transportation requires two other factors in addition to the right drive technologies: a green energy infrastructure and competitive costs compared to conventional vehicles."

In their highly expert opinion then:
' we need both battery-electric and hydrogen-powered drive technologies'

That opinion is shared by just about every truck producing company there is.

How the breakdown of BEVs versus hydrogen vehicles works out depends on a host of factors, and personally I am not a big fan of universalist arguments 'from first principles'.

Sucking it and seeing, and not committing to one track too soon, has a way better track record.


Hi Gasbag.

You said:

' The cost of H2 generated as a byproduct of industrial processes varies from the approximate equivalent of $3.5 to $10 per grange depending on region, no mention of how scaleable this source is. '

In the case of China, hugely scalable as they intend to use their nuclear PBR reactors which they now have up and running for industrial process heat, and hydrogen generation.

In the East it takes around 3-4 years to build a reactor, nothing like the delays in the West, and the economics are way better both because of that and because they can utilise the 'waste' heat of the reactors profitably.

So they have a technically and economically viable plan for making as much hydrogen as they want, cheaply,

The comments to this entry are closed.