NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy 

Efficiency & Renewable Energy, operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC.

Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308

An Evaluation of the Total Cost 

of Ownership of Fuel CellPowered Material Handling 

Equipment 

Todd Ramsden

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Technical Report

NREL/TP-5600-56408

April 2013
NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy 

Efficiency & Renewable Energy, operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC.

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

15013 Denver West Parkway

Golden, Colorado 80401

303-275-3000 • www.nrel.gov

Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308

An Evaluation of the Total Cost 

of Ownership of Fuel CellPowered Material Handling 

Equipment 

Todd Ramsden

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Prepared under Task No. HT12.8610

Technical Report

NREL/TP-5600-56408

April 2013
NOTICE

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. 

Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, 

express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of 

any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately 

owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, 

trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, 

or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors 

expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or any agency thereof.

Available electronically at http://www.osti.gov/bridge

Available for a processing fee to U.S. Department of Energy

and its contractors, in paper, from:

U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Scientific and Technical Information

P.O. Box 62

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062

phone: 865.576.8401

fax: 865.576.5728

email: mailto:reports@adonis.osti.gov

Available for sale to the public, in paper, from:

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Technical Information Service

5285 Port Royal Road

Springfield, VA 22161

phone: 800.553.6847

fax: 703.605.6900

email: orders@ntis.fedworld.gov

online ordering: http://www.ntis.gov/help/ordermethods.aspx

Cover Photos: (left to right) PIX 16416, PIX 17423, PIX 16560, PIX 17613, PIX 17436, PIX 17721

Printed on paper containing at least 50% wastepaper, including 10% post consumer waste.
iii

Acknowledgments

Funding for this report came from the U.S. Department of Energy’s Fuel Cell Technologies 

Office. 

The author would like to acknowledge the following people for their assistance and support 

during this analysis. 

Thank you to colleagues Jennifer Kurtz, Sam Sprik, and Chris Ainscough at the National 

Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) for their thorough review and detailed comments on the 

underlying analytical framework and several iterations of the report. The same colleagues, along 

with Genevieve Saur and Keith Wipke of NREL, were instrumental in developing aggregated 

data analyses (known as composite data products) of fuel cell material handling equipment 

deployments that were used as part of this report’s cost of ownership analysis. The author would 

like to particularly thank Sunita Satyapal, Director of DOE’s Fuel Cell Technologies Office, who 

reviewed draft versions of this report, providing insight into the market opportunities for fuel 

cells and helping improve the clarity of the report. James Petrecky of Plug Power helped the 

author better understand additional benefits of using fuel cells in material handling applications 

and provided comments on the overall report. LMI provided funding assistance to NREL to 

analyze deployments of fuel cell material handling equipment at facilities operated by the 

Department of Defense’s Defense Logistics Agency (DLA). In particular, Stuart Funk and 

Michael Canes of LMI assisted the author with the analysis framework for the cost of ownership 

assessment based on their own evaluation of fuel cells at DLA warehouses. 

Finally, facilities managers and representatives from commercially operated warehouses 

participating in the government-sponsored deployments of fuel cell material handling equipment 

provided detailed information on their fuel cell fleets that was used as a basis of the cost of 

ownership analysis. These commercial warehouse operators and representatives from Plug 

Power, Nuvera Fuel Cells, and Hydrogenics Corporation provided ongoing fuel cell system 

operational data and reviewed NREL’s composite data products, many of which were 

instrumental in this report’s cost of ownership evaluation. 
iv

Executive Summary

Although fuel cell electric vehicles are still are in a pre-commercialization phase, hydrogen fuel 

cells currently are being used commercially in early market applications such as material 

handling and backup power. These early commercialization fuel cell deployments are helping 

improve hydrogen and fuel cell technologies and expanding their market potential. 

Fuel cell systems look particularly promising as replacements for batteries in material handling 

equipment (MHE, or more typically “forklifts”) in warehouse applications where operations 

extend for two or three shifts each day. In such applications, batteries generally need to be 

charged and replaced one or more times each day, which complicates logistics and increases 

overall labor costs. Fuel cell MHE have zero emissions, can operate for more than 12 hours 

without performance degradation, and can be fueled in minutes, making fuel cells an attractive 

alternative to conventional battery systems. 

The Fuel Cell Technologies Office within the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Office of 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy has helped fund deployments of fuel cell-powered 

material handling equipment in commercial warehouse facilities to better understand the realworld performance of fuel cells in these applications.1 Additionally, the Department of Defense’s 

Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), with support from DOE, funded deployments of fuel cell 

material handling equipment in DLA warehouses as part of its fuel cell research and 

development program. To date, DOE has helped fund the deployment of more than 500 fuel cellpowered material handling units in commercial facilities. Additionally, DLA deployed more than 

100 fuel cell material handling units in its distribution warehouses as part of its research and 

development activities. Using data from these government co-funded deployments, DOE’s

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) has been evaluating the performance of fuel 

cells in material handling applications. As part of this evaluation, NREL has assessed the total 

cost of ownership of fuel cell MHE and compared it to the cost of ownership of traditional 

battery-powered MHE. 

 

1 DOE has funded deployments of both hydrogen-fueled polymer electrolyte membrane (PEM) fuel cells and 

methanol-fueled direct methanol fuel cells (DMFCs). This report limits its analysis to hydrogen-fueled PEM fuel 

cells.
v 

Figure ES-1. Total annual cost of ownership of battery and fuel cell MHE

As part of its cost of ownership assessment, NREL looked at a range of costs associated with 

MHE operation, including the capital costs of battery and fuel cell systems, the cost of 

supporting infrastructure, maintenance costs, warehouse space costs, and labor costs. 

Considering all these costs, NREL found that fuel cell MHE can have a lower overall cost of 

ownership than comparable battery-powered MHE (see Figure ES-1). The total cost assessment 

represents an analysis of the average of the deployment sites evaluated, which in turn reflects a 

fairly intensive warehouse and distribution application—a deployment of about 60 fuel cell lifts 

for 2–3 shifts per day, 6–7 days per week. NREL found that for Class I and II forklifts (threeand four-wheel, sit-down, counter-balanced forklifts) used in multi-shift operations, fuel cells 

could reduce the overall cost of ownership by 10%, from $19,700 per year per lift truck to 

$17,800 per year per lift truck. The cost of ownership of Class III forklifts (also known as pallet 

jacks) can be reduced by 5%, from $12,400 per year to $11,700 per year for each lift truck.

2

NREL’s evaluation limits itself to considering the cost of ownership and operation of battery and 

fuel cell MHE. Potential benefits of fuel cell MHE such as improved productivity, and more 

broadly the potential for increased sales and profits, were not evaluated. The cost analysis 

assumes that the currently-available federal tax credit for fuel cell purchases is available to help 

effectively lower the purchased cost of fuel cell systems.3 As discussed in the report, total cost of 

 

2 These cost of ownership results have previously been published by NREL as part of its technology validation of 

early market fuel cell applications. As part of the publication process of the assessment results (known as 

“composite data products”), the fuel cell MHE cost of ownership results have been reviewed and approved by 

participants in the government-sponsored deployments, including representatives from Plug Power, Nuvera Fuel 

Cells, and Hydrogenics Corporation (the companies that provided fuel cell systems for the material handling 

equipment), as well as representatives from the deployment sites themselves. For more information on these 

deployments, see NREL’s evaluations of early fuel cell market demonstrations available on the NREL Fuel Cell and 

Hydrogen Technology Validation website: http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/proj_fc_market_demo.html. 3 The total cost of ownership assessment is based on data from deployments of fuel cell MHE that received funding 

support from DOE and DLA, as noted. The cost of ownership assessment does not include this funding support as 

part of the evaluation, and the results reflect ownership costs that would be seen by any commercial site deploying 

fuel cell MHE.
vi 

ownership of fuel cell MHE is lower than the ownership costs of comparable battery-powered 

MHE even without the federal tax credit, though the cost savings for fuel cell MHE are reduced. 

Breaking down the total cost of ownership results into separate components provides an 

understanding of the benefits of using fuel cells for MHE and also shows some of the challenges 

hydrogen and fuel cell technologies face. In terms of equipment costs, fuel cell systems are more 

expensive than battery systems. When used in multi-shift warehousing operations, considering 

the longer predicted life of fuel cell systems and the need for multiple battery packs per lift, the 

total annualized equipment costs of fuel cell systems are comparable to that of batteries for Class 

I, II, and III MHE. The costs of hydrogen fuel and especially hydrogen fueling infrastructure are 

both higher than the comparable electricity and battery changing/charging infrastructure costs. 

For the deployments characterized in this study, these higher costs are more than offset by lower 

labor costs for hydrogen fueling compared to battery changing and charging and by lower facility

space costs for hydrogen infrastructure compared to battery changing and charging 

infrastructure. For Class I and II MHE, fuel cells can lower annual per-lift truck labor costs from 

$4,400 for battery changing and charging to only $800 for hydrogen fueling and can lower 

annual facility space costs from $1,900 to $500 (Class III MHE annual labor costs can be 

reduced from $3,200 to $500). 

As part of its total cost evaluation, NREL also conducted sensitivity analyses to better 

understand the driving factors associated with the cost of ownership. These analyses indicate that 

the intensity of the MHE deployment is the largest driving factor in whether fuel cell MHE will 

have a lower cost of ownership compared to battery MHE. Hydrogen-fueled fuel cell MHE offer 

significant labor savings over battery systems in intensive, multi-shift operations that require 

frequent battery changes. The number of operation days per year and particularly the number of 

MHE units deployed in a facility can also greatly affect whether using fuel cell MHE instead of 

battery MHE is a cost-effective choice. More operating days and operating hours further extends 

the labor saving aspects of fuel cell MHE compared to battery MHE, and a greater number of 

onsite fuel cell systems helps lower the per-lift truck cost of hydrogen fueling infrastructure. 

Overall, NREL’s cost of ownership evaluation finds that when deployed in larger-scale, multishift warehouse applications, fuel cell MHE can provide cost savings compared to traditional, 

battery-powered MHE. The case studied in this paper considers a fleet of almost 60 fuel cell 

material handling units. Although the study does not predict the minimum break-even number of 

fuel cell forklifts, as long as fuel cell MHE fleets are large enough to help minimize the per-lift

truck cost of hydrogen infrastructure, and as long as the warehouse facility operates multiple 

shifts with the need for multiple battery changes, total fuel cell MHE costs appear to stay below 

the total cost of deploying battery lifts. NREL’s findings suggest fairly modest cost of ownership 

reductions seen by deploying fuel cell MHE rather than traditional battery-powered MHE. As 

potential productivity assessments associated with fuel cell MHE were not evaluated, NREL’s 

findings may be considered to be conservative. 
vii 

Table of Contents

1 Introduction........................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Overview.......................................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Deployments of Hydrogen Fuel Cell Material Handling Equipment .............................................. 2

1.3 Total MHE Cost Analysis Overview ............................................................................................... 3

2 Cost Analysis for Class I and II Material Handling Equipment........................................................ 4

2.1 Cost of Bare Lift Truck, Battery Packs, and Fuel Cell Systems...................................................... 5

2.2 Cost of Battery-Charging and Hydrogen Infrastructure................................................................... 6

2.3 Labor Costs for Battery Changing and Hydrogen Fueling .............................................................. 8

2.4 Cost of Electricity and Hydrogen .................................................................................................... 9

2.5 Cost of Infrastructure Warehouse Space........................................................................................ 10

2.6 Cost of Maintenance for Lift Trucks, Battery Packs, and Fuel Cell Systems................................ 11

3 Cost Analysis for Class III Material Handling Equipment .............................................................. 11

3.1 Cost of Bare Lift Truck, Battery Packs, and Fuel Cell Systems.................................................... 12

3.2 Cost of Battery-Charging and Hydrogen Infrastructure................................................................. 13

3.3 Labor Costs for Battery Changing and Hydrogen Fueling ............................................................ 14

3.4 Cost of Electricity and Hydrogen .................................................................................................. 14

3.5 Cost of Infrastructure Warehouse Space........................................................................................ 15

3.6 Cost of Maintenance for Lift Trucks, Battery Packs, and Fuel Cell Systems................................ 15

4 Total Cost of Ownership Results...................................................................................................... 17

5 Total Cost of Ownership Sensitivity Analysis ................................................................................. 21

5.1 Sensitivity Analysis for Class I and II Material Handling Equipment........................................... 22

5.2 Sensitivity Analysis for Class III Material Handling Equipment .................................................. 23

6 Intensive Deployment Scenario Cost Analysis ............................................................................... 25

7 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................ 27

Appendix.................................................................................................................................................... 29
1 

1 Introduction

1.1 Overview

Fuel cell electric vehicles are expected to provide significant positive environmental and energy 

security benefits, yet at this time they are still in a pre-commercialization state of development. 

However, hydrogen fuel cells are being used today to satisfy a commercial need in early market 

applications such as material handling and backup power, and these uses are furthering the 

development of fuel cells and related hydrogen fueling infrastructure and helping expand the 

market for these promising technologies. 

A 2007 study by Battelle indicated that hydrogen-fueled polymer electrolyte membrane (PEM) 

fuel cells have the potential to provide material handling services at a lower cost than lead acid 

battery and combustion engine systems can under certain types of operating conditions.4 Large 

warehouses can deploy several hundred forklifts per site for handling materials, with operations 

occurring during two or three shifts each day. Such material handling equipment (MHE) must be 

low- or zero-emission to meet safety requirements for indoor use. Current technologies meeting 

these requirements include battery-electric and propane-engine (LPG) MHE. Electric models

generally can only operate for about 5–6 hours continuously before they need to be charged or 

have the drained battery pack replaced with a freshly charged battery pack. A battery can require 

as much as 8 hours for charging and freshly-charged batteries may need several additional hours 

of cooling time prior to reuse. This lowers productivity for the forklift unit as well as for the 

workers responsible for charging or replacing spent battery packs, and it increases equipment 

costs as multiple battery packs are needed for each lift. Electric forklifts also require additional 

warehouse space for charging equipment and up to three batteries per unit. LPG forklifts are 

appropriate for indoor or outdoor use; however, they are not zero-emission. Extra ventilation and 

safety equipment are necessary for indoor use, and widespread use of LPG MHE in indoor 

facilities is not generally preferred, particularly in food warehousing and distribution facilities. 

Forklifts powered by hydrogen-fueled PEM fuel cells have zero emissions at their point of use, 

can operate for more than 12 hours without performance degradation, and can be fueled in 

minutes. Fuel cell MHE can be fueled rapidly, provide constant power without voltage drop 

during use, and eliminate the need for battery storage and charging infrastructure. Fuel cell MHE 

require new hydrogen fueling infrastructure, but much of the required infrastructure can be sited 

outdoors and optimal designs could take up less space than what is currently needed for electric 

forklifts. As such, fuel cell forklifts offer an alternative to conventional technology and 

potentially can provide substantial cost savings over comparable battery- and LPG-powered 

forklifts.

This paper discusses an analysis of the total cost of ownership of PEM fuel cell and traditional 

battery-powered MHE. The analysis was conducted to better understand the market potential of 

fuel cells in material handling applications and to validate the business case for fuel cell MHE. 

The paper begins with a discussion of a number of fuel cell MHE deployments that received 

funding support from the federal government. These deployments are providing valuable data 

 

4 K. Mahadevan, K. Judd, H. Stone, J. Zewatsky, A. Thomas, H. Mahy, and D. Paul, “Identification and 

Characterization of Near-Term Direct Hydrogen Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cell Markets,” Battelle, April 

2007.
2 

that form the basis of the cost of ownership assessment. The paper then discusses the role the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) is playing to compile and analyze these data. 

After that introduction to the project, the approach to the cost of ownership analysis is discussed. 

The major inputs driving the analysis are then described, first for Class I and II MHE and then 

again for Class III MHE. The paper concludes with a discussion of the analysis results, along 

with the results of sensitivity analyses.

1.2 Deployments of Hydrogen Fuel Cell Material Handling Equipment

The Fuel Cell Technologies Office at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has been funding 

deployments of fuel cell MHE in order to evaluate their performance, help further fuel cell 

technology- and manufacturing-readiness levels, and help build and expand early markets for 

fuel cell technologies.5 Leveraging funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 

of 2009, DOE helped fund deployments of PEM fuel cell MHE at eight commercial warehousing 

and distribution centers, including facilities operated by Sysco Houston, Sysco Philadelphia, 

HEB Grocers, Coca-Cola, FedEx, Wegman’s Grocers, Whole Foods, and Kimberly Clark. 

Additionally, the Department of Defense’s Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) recently concluded 

fuel cell research and development projects that have included multi-year demonstrations of the 

use of hydrogen fuel cell-powered forklifts in material handling operations at four of its 

warehousing and distribution centers.6 

Building on its experience with the technology validation of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles and 

fueling infrastructure, NREL has been performing technical analyses of fuel cell MHE for 

DOE’s Fuel Cell Technologies Office to assess the performance and market potential of fuel cell 

technologies in material handling applications. NREL is analyzing data from these deployment 

projects to evaluate the durability and performance of fuel cell forklifts and related hydrogen 

infrastructure using such metrics as operating hours between fills and operating hours per 

kilogram, maintenance events, availability, reliability, durability, and safety. While individual 

company data is kept confidential, NREL publishes aggregated performance analysis results 

called “composite data products” (CDPs) that show the status and performance of hydrogen and 

fuel cell technologies without identifying individual companies or their performance (see 

Appendix for more details on NREL’s data analyses). 

The DOE- and DOD-sponsored deployments of fuel cell MHE are providing a rich source of 

data to understand the performance of fuel cells and related hydrogen infrastructure in material 

handling applications. As part of a research and development project conducted over the course 

of three years, DLA operated 75 Class I MHE units from three different manufacturers in two 

DLA-operated warehouses.7 Within these deployments, fuel cell-powered Class I forklifts have 

 

5 DOE has funded deployments of both hydrogen-fueled polymer electrolyte membrane (PEM) fuel cells and 

methanol-fueled direct methanol fuel cells (DMFCs). This report limits its analysis to hydrogen-fueled PEM fuel 

cells.

6 For more information on DLA’s fuel cell research and development activities, see T.J. Gross, A.J. Poche, and K. 

C. Ennis, “Beyond Demonstration: The Role of Fuel Cells in DoD’s Energy Strategy,” LMI, 2011.

7 The DLA-funded demonstrations characterized in this analysis are now completed. Two additional DLA-funded 

fuel cell MHE deployments were conducted at the Joint Base Lewis-McChord and DLA’s distribution center in 

Tracy, California. These more recent DLA deployments were not included in this analysis, as NREL did not 

participate in the data analysis from these projects.
3 

logged more than 180,000 hours of operation, and more than 25,000 kilograms of hydrogen has 

been dispensed over nearly 50,000 fueling events. 

The DOE-sponsored deployments are providing even more data to increase our understanding of 

the performance of fuel cell MHE under real-world operating conditions. As of June 2012, DOEsponsored warehouse facilities have deployed more than 500 Class I, II, and III material handling 

units powered with fuel cells. Over more than three years of operation, these fuel cell forklifts

have logged 1.25 million hours of operation using 140,000 kg of hydrogen dispensed over almost 

200,000 fueling events.8

1.3 Total MHE Cost Analysis Overview

The CDPs from the government-sponsored deployments of fuel cell MHE continue to be updated 

and made available to the public.9 As part of the set of CDPs characterizing fuel cell MHE

operation, several CDPs have been developed to compare the total cost of ownership of fuel cellpowered MHE to the cost of ownership of traditional battery-powered MHE. This paper 

describes the analysis underlying the cost of ownership CDPs and discusses the results of those 

cost analyses. As with all CDPs, the cost of ownership CDPs and their results have been 

reviewed and approved by representatives of the participating deployments, including 

representatives from Plug Power, Nuvera Fuel Cells, and Hydrogenics Corporation (the 

companies that provided fuel cell systems for the material handling equipment), as well as 

representatives of DLA, FedEx, Wegman’s Grocers, Sysco Foods, Coca-Cola, HEB, Whole 

Foods, and Kimberly Clark. 

For the total cost of ownership assessment, separate analyses were conducted for Class I and II 

lifts (analyzed as a single class for the purposes of this assessment) and Class III lifts. The cost of 

ownership assessment considers a wide array of costs: capital and replacement costs, 

maintenance costs, and operational costs including labor costs, energy and fuel costs, and cost of 

warehouse space dedicated to MHE-related equipment.

The total cost of ownership analysis is based on two primary sources of data. Much of the data 

on MHE costs and usage come from a questionnaire provided to operations managers of the 

warehouses deploying fuel cell MHE, listed above. NREL sent questionnaires to facilities 

managers at 10 deployment sites and received responses from seven sites; five of the responses 

were from commercial warehouse facilities and two responses came from government-operated 

facilities. Data on usage patterns are also drawn from NREL’s fuel cell MHE CDPs, which

characterize fuel cell MHE performance and operations. In addition to these primary sources of 

data, some literature data are referenced. 

For the cost of ownership analysis, all costs are presented as annualized costs on a per-lift truck 

basis (in present value terms). Costs of ownership are not analyzed over a specific time period.

Rather, the use of material handling equipment and their associated infrastructure in the 

warehouse facility is presumed to be an ongoing enterprise, with operating costs expected to 

 

8 For more information on these deployments, see NREL’s evaluations of early fuel cell market demonstrations 

available on the NREL Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Technology Validation website:

http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/proj_fc_market_demo.html. 9 Current versions of early fuel cell market demonstration CDPs are available on the NREL Fuel Cell and Hydrogen 

Technology Validation website: http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/proj_fc_market_demo.html. 
4 

remain constant in real terms and capital equipment expected to be maintained and replaced as 

needed. Capital costs are amortized over the expected life (reported in years) of the specific 

equipment in question. Equipment is maintained and replaced as necessary, with equipment 

replacement costs assumed to remain constant in real dollar terms. With this analysis approach, 

the costs presented are essentially for development of a “greenfield” site without any existing 

infrastructure and no need for any demolition or remodeling of the existing facility. For the 

purposes of this analysis, material handling equipment is presumed to be deployed in commercial 

facilities (not government owned), and thus federal tax credits for fuel cell purchases would be 

available. (The federal tax credit for fuel cell system purchases is considered to be available in 

this evaluation, but no other government support is considered, even though the deployments 

analyzed in this evaluation did receive additional cost-sharing support.) 

As costs are considered in present-value terms, a discount rate is applied to capital purchases. 

For this analysis, the discount rate of 1.5% has been used, based on U.S. Treasury bond rates as 

reported by the U.S. Treasury. In particular, the 1.5% real rate is the one-year average (from 

September 2010 to September 2011 when the cost of ownership analysis was initially conducted) 

of daily U.S. Treasury Long-Term Real Rates reported for U.S. Treasury Inflation Protected 

Securities (TIPS). The Treasury Department10 notes that the “Long-Term Real Rate Average is 

the unweighted average of bid real yields on all outstanding TIPS with remaining maturities of 

more than 10 years and is intended as a proxy for long-term real rates.” 

This evaluation limits itself to considering the cost of ownership and operation of battery and 

fuel cell MHE. Potential benefits of fuel cell MHE such as improved productivity, and more 

broadly the potential for increased sales and profits, are not evaluated. The discussion around 

increased productivity attained by using fuel cell power modules is a contentious one in industry, 

often with differing opinions presented by material handling equipment manufacturers and fuel 

cell suppliers. Without detailed, controlled experiments of the two technologies, it is not possible 

for NREL to make any judgments about the specific potential productivity effects of using fuel 

cells instead of batteries for MHE power. There are far too many variables that affect operator 

productivity beyond the type of power module used in the vehicle. These include, but are not 

limited to, the following: the type of drive system in the vehicle (AC or DC), age, condition and 

state of charge of the battery in use, workload, equipment capacity factor, seasonality, operator 

fatigue, and operator experience.

2 Cost Analysis for Class I and II Material Handling 

Equipment

A summary of the cost elements contributing to the total cost of ownership of Class I and II 

forklifts is shown in Figure 1. These cost elements include:

• Cost of the bare forklift 

• Cost of the required battery or fuel cell systems

• Cost of battery changing and charging or hydrogen fueling infrastructure 

 

10 U.S. Department of the Treasury, Resource Center: Daily Treasury Real Long-Term Rates, 

www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/interest-rates/Pages/TextView.aspx?data=reallongtermrate. 
5 

• Labor costs of battery changing or hydrogen fueling 

• Cost of energy required by the forklifts 

• Cost of facility space for infrastructure (indoor and outdoor) 

• Cost of lift truck maintenance 

• Cost of battery or fuel cell system maintenance. 

The per-lift truck annualized cost calculations for these cost elements and the key input 

parameters affecting these costs are discussed in the sections below. There are a number of key 

parameters that drive these cost elements, which are shown in Figure 2 and Figure 3. 

Total Annualized Costs Per Lift Truck

Cost Element Battery MHE Fuel Cell MHE

Amortized Cost of Lift Truck $2,800 $2,800

Amortized Cost of Battery / Fuel Cell Packs $2,300 $2,600

Per-Lift Truck Cost of Charge/Fuel Infrastructure $1,400 $3,700

Labor Cost for Charging and Fueling $4,400 $800

Cost of Electricity / Hydrogen $500 $2,400

Cost of Infrastructure Warehouse Space $1,900 $500

Lift Truck Maintenance $2,800 $2,800

Battery / Fuel Cell Maintenance $3,600 $2,200

Total Annual Cost of Forklift $19,700 $17,800

Figure 1. Contributing costs to total cost of ownership of Class I and II MHE

2.1 Cost of Bare Lift Truck, Battery Packs, and Fuel Cell Systems

Based on feedback from the questionnaire, warehouse operators reported that the cost of a bare 

lift truck ranged from $17,000 to $35,000 each, with an average cost of $25,000. Similarly, users 

reported lift truck lifetimes ranging from 5 to 15 years, with an average lifetime of 10 years. 

Using these data, the annualized, present value cost of a bare Class I lift truck is $2,800. (Note:

though the cost of ownership analysis was generalized for Class I and II lift trucks, the cost

presented for the bare lift truck only includes Class I lifts.)

Facility operators reported an average cost for a single battery pack of $4,800, with costs ranging 

from $2,900 to $8,000. They further reported a 4.4-year average lifetime for a battery pack 

(ranging from 4 to 5 years). The facilities operate for 2 to 3 shifts per day, with an average of 

2.25 shifts per day. MHE batteries generally cannot remain charged for two full shifts, so users 

typically own more than one battery pack per lift truck if batteries are not charged in the lift.

Facility operators reported an average of two battery packs per lift. Considering the cost of two 
6 

battery packs with an average lifetime of 4.4 years, the annualized, present value of battery packs 

on a per-lift truck basis is $2,300.

In contrast to these battery costs, operators reported an average cost of $33,000 for a fuel cell 

system for Class I and II lifts (typically 8–10 kW in size), with costs ranging from $32,000 to 

$34,000. These equipment costs were generally offset by a federal tax credit available for fuel 

cell systems, set at the lesser of $3,000/kW or 30% of the cost. For an average system costing

$33,000, this tax credit reduces the effective cost of the fuel cell system by about $10,000. This 

tax credit is assumed to be available and applicable for the purposes of this analysis, though all 

purchasers may not be able to take advantage of it (for example, as federal facilities, the DLAsponsored deployments could not make use of this tax credit). 

Key Parameters for General

And Capital Costs

Class I/II MHE

Battery Fuel Cell

General

Discount Rate for Capital Purchases 1.5% 1.5%

Operation Days Per Year 340 340

Operation Hours Per Year 2,400 2,400

Average Shifts Per Day 2.25 2.25

Size of Combined Class I, II & III Fleet 97 58

Cost of Hydrogen ($/kg) – $8/kg

Lift Truck 

Capital

Capital Cost of Bare Lift Truck $25,000 $25,000

Average Life of Lift Truck (years) 10 10

Battery & 

Fuel Cell 

Capital

Cost of Batteries (2) / Fuel Cell System $9,600 $33,000

Federal Tax Credits Available – $9,800

Battery / Fuel Cell Systems Per Lift 2 1

Battery / Fuel Cell System Life (years) 4.4 10

Figure 2. General facility and capital cost inputs for Class I and II MHE11

Users reported an expected fuel cell lifetime of 10 years (ranging from 5 to 15 years). (This cost 

analysis does include costs for ongoing maintenance of fuel cell MHE as discussed below, but no 

specific capital costs are included for the potential need for a fuel cell stack replacement during 

the 10-year fuel cell system lifetime.) Because hydrogen-based fuel cell systems can be filled 

quickly compared to the time needed for battery charging, users reported an average of one fuel 

cell system per lift truck. Considering the cost less the available tax credit and a lifetime of 10 

years, the annualized, present value of fuel cell systems per lift truck is $2,600. If the tax credit is 

not available, the annualized cost of a fuel cell system rises by $1,100 to a total of $3,700 per 

year per lift truck. 

2.2 Cost of Battery-Charging and Hydrogen Infrastructure

Batteries used in material handling applications can typically only provide adequate power for 

one 8-hour shift, or about 5–6 hours of actual “pedal time” (time the lift is in use during the 

shift), after which they must be charged and allowed to cool down before use. In multi-shift 

 

11 Figure 2 is taken from NREL CDP MHE 64a, General & Capital Cost Inputs for Class I/II MHE, 3/29/2012, 

available at http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/proj_fc_market_demo.html. 
7 

operations, batteries are generally changed out each shift. Battery charging infrastructure 

includes the actual battery chargers but also includes a battery charge and change-out area or 

room, charging stations with charging/cooling racks, hoists and cranes used to change batteries, 

and battery wash and fill stations. 

Facility operators reported keeping an average of 1.1 chargers for every battery lift truck 

deployed, with an average charger cost of $2,800 (ranging from $2,200 to $3,500 per charger). 

On average, users reported battery chargers lasting 7.5 years, with lifetimes ranging from 5 to 10 

years. Based on these data, the present value, annualized cost of chargers reported on a per-lift 

truck basis is $500. 

In addition to these equipment costs for battery chargers, battery infrastructure costs include the 

equipment costs for the racks, hoists, and cranes; periodic refurbishment of changing equipment; 

amortized construction costs for the battery changing and charging room; and maintenance of 

both the chargers and the battery changing equipment. Respondents to the questionnaire did not 

provide enough depth of detail on these battery infrastructure items to estimate annualized costs. 

Based on feedback on the deployment experience at DLA’s Defense Depot in Susquehanna, 

Pennsylvania, together with data from available literature,

12 these costs were estimated to be 

$900 per lift truck per year. Together with the equipment costs of the chargers, the total present 

value, annualized cost of battery infrastructure capital and operating and maintenance costs is 

$1,400 per lift truck. 

For the fuel cell MHE deployments analyzed, most facilities operated leased hydrogen fueling 

infrastructure although some facilities purchased the hydrogen infrastructure. Leased equipment 

costs were based on monthly service charges, which include both depreciation on installed 

capital equipment and a service fee to cover maintenance. Respondents using purchased 

equipment provided information on the cost of the installed infrastructure and the cost of 

maintaining and operating that equipment. The total monthly cost of hydrogen infrastructure—

either the amortized purchase cost of infrastructure plus maintenance costs or the service charge 

for leased infrastructure—ranged from $12,000 to $22,000 per site. Taking into account the 

number of fuel cell MHE served, the present value, annualized cost of hydrogen infrastructure 

(including capital, operating, and maintenance costs) is $3,700 per lift truck. This average 

infrastructure cost assessment is estimated on a per-lift truck basis, not on the amount of 

hydrogen consumed, and considers all fuel cell lifts deployed, including Class I, II, and III MHE. 

It is important to note that this per-lift truck cost of hydrogen infrastructure is for an average fuel 

cell MHE fleet size of 58 units. Per-lift truck hydrogen infrastructure costs vary inversely to the 

 

12 For more information, please see the following: K. Mahadevan, K. Judd, H. Stone, J. Zewatsky, A. Thomas, H. 

Mahy, and D. Paul, “Identification and Characterization of Near-Term Direct Hydrogen Proton Exchange 

Membrane Fuel Cell Markets,” Battelle, April 2007; M. Canes, “Economic Aspects of Fuel Cell Forklifts: What 

Have We Learned from Two Defense Logistics Agency Pilot Projects,” USAEE Conference, October 2011; A. 

Schneider, “Vistavia Warehousing, Inc.,” Global Perspectives on Accounting Education, Vol. 1, 2004; J. Bowles, 

“The Case for Choosing 3-Phase AC Electric Trucks Over Vehicles Based on DC Electric, Internal Combustion, or 

Diesel Technologies,” Jungheinrich Lift Truck Corporation; “The Truth About Electric Lift Trucks,” Hyster 

Company, 2010. 
8 

number of fuel cell units deployed, and thus would be higher for smaller fleets and lower for 

larger fleets.13

2.3 Labor Costs for Battery Changing and Hydrogen Fueling

For MHE operated in multiple shifts per day, the short hydrogen fueling times for fuel cells 

compared to the more lengthy time required to change out and charge batteries give fuel cell lifts

an advantage over battery lifts under these operating conditions. (Because these labor savings are 

one of the primary advantages of fuel cell MHE over battery-powered lifts, this analysis only 

considers multi-shift operations.) This analysis estimates the cost of warehouse labor spent 

changing and charging batteries or spent fueling fuel cell MHE with hydrogen. Fuel cell MHE 

provide a consistent level of power throughout their operation, whereas battery-powered MHE 

can sometimes exhibit a sag in their available voltage at the end of the discharge cycle, reducing 

available performance. As such, fuel cell MHE might be able to provide improved performance 

compared to battery lifts towards the end of the shift or discharge cycle. However, this analysis 

does not attempt to quantify any differences in labor productivity between fuel cell MHE and 

battery MHE.

Key Parameters for Infrastructure and

Operations & Maintenance Costs

Class I/II MHE

Battery Fuel Cell

Battery & 

Hydrogen 

Infrastructure

Capital Cost of Battery Charger $2,800 – 

Average Life of Charger (years) 7.5 – 

Average Number of Chargers/Lift 1.1 – 

Infrastructure Capital + Maintenance $75/lift/mo. $17,000/mo.

Labor Cost for 

Battery Changes 

& H2 Fueling 

Battery Change / H2 Fill Time (min.) 10.5 3.0

Lift Travel + Queue Time (min.) 3.8 3.3

Battery Changes / H2 Fills Per Day 2.25 1.0

Operator Loaded Labor Rate ($/hr.) $24 $24

Warehouse 

Space Cost 

Indoor Space for Infrastructure (ft2) 5,100 ft2 500 ft2

Outdoor Space for Infrastructure (ft2) – 2,500 ft2

Indoor Warehouse Space Cost ($/ft2) $3/ft2 $3/ft2

Outdoor Land Space Cost ($/ft2) – $0.34/ft2

Maintenance Monthly Lift Truck Maintenance $230 $230

Monthly Battery / FC Maintenance $150 $180

Figure 3. Infrastructure and operational cost inputs for Class I and II MHE14

 

13 As some of the infrastructure costs associated with MHE operation may not scale linearly with fleet size, the sizes 

of the analyzed MHE fleets are shown in Figure 2. The costs analyzed come from responses from facility managers 

who may operate both battery-powered and fuel cell MHE. The difference in fleet sizes shown in Figure 2 (97 

battery-powered MHE vs. 58 fuel cell MHE) represent the average fleet sizes of battery-powered and fuel cell MHE 

at these warehouses, indicating that the facilities analyzed deploy more battery-powered lifts on average.
9 

The labor cost analysis considers both the labor time for battery change and charge compared to 

hydrogen fueling time and the travel time and queuing time for the lift operator. The cost and 

space required for battery changes generally mean that only one battery changing area is 

available in the warehouse facility. Conversely, the low cost and footprint requirements for 

hydrogen fueling dispensers often enable warehouses to provide more than one hydrogen 

dispenser, potentially in multiple warehouse locations. At the same time, because hydrogen 

fueling time is shorter than the time required to change out batteries, queuing time can be 

reduced. As a result, travel and queue times for battery lifts can be longer than those for fuel cell 

lifts.

Based on data collected from the analyzed deployments, warehouse facilities operate an average 

of 340 days each year, with 2,400 hours of operation each year per lift. This level of operation, 

which is used in the cost analysis, tracks feedback received from facility operators. Based on the 

questionnaire, warehouse facilities operated an average of 333 days per year (ranging from 280 

to 360 days per year) with material handling units averaging 2,100 hours of operation per year. 

Facilities operated 2 or 3 shifts each day, with an average of 2.25 shifts per day. Facility 

managers reported an average loaded labor rate for battery change-out labor of $24/hour (ranging 

from $19 to $28 per hour). Hydrogen fueling labor also averaged $24/hour, with a range of $18 

to $32 per hour. 

Respondents reported an average of 2.25 battery changes per day, which corresponds to one 

battery change for each shift. Travel and queuing time for battery lifts averaged 3.8 minutes, and 

battery changes required an average of 10.5 minutes. Based on this, the annual per-lift truck

labor cost for battery changing and charging is $4,400 (about $13 per day per lift truck).

The labor cost analysis for fuel cell MHE used data from questionnaire respondents together with 

data on filling time and frequency collected from the analyzed deployments and analyzed by 

NREL (particularly data from MHE CDPs 6, 8, and 22). Respondents reported an average travel 

and queuing time of 3.3 minutes for filling fuel cell MHE with hydrogen. Based on data from the 

deployments, actual hydrogen fueling time for Class I and II lifts is 3 minutes per fill (compared 

to an average hydrogen filling time of 3.4 minutes as reported from facilities managers based on 

the questionnaire). Analyzing the data from the questionnaire and from the fuel cell MHE 

deployments, the annual per-lift truck labor cost for hydrogen fueling is $800 (about $2.50 per 

day per lift). 

2.4 Cost of Electricity and Hydrogen

The cost of energy to operate MHE can be a significant annual expense, particularly for fuel cell 

lifts as hydrogen is more expensive than electricity on a per-unit-energy basis. Based on 

feedback from warehouse operators, battery-powered lifts require $500 per year on average in 

electricity costs, per lift. Respondents provided electricity costs as a total per lift truck or per 

fleet, not in terms of usage and cost per kilowatt-hour of electricity. As a reference, average 

commercial electricity rates in the United States are about 7.5 cents/kWh. 

 14 Figure 3 is taken from NREL CDP MHE 64b, Infrastructure & Operation Costs for Class I/II MHE, 3/29/2012, 

available at http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/proj_fc_market_demo.html. 
10 

Facility operators reported an average hydrogen cost of $8/kg (ranging from $5 to $22 per 

kilogram). Using fuel cell MHE deployment data on per-lift truck hydrogen usage together with 

this average $8/kg hydrogen cost, fuel cell MHE incur annual hydrogen expenses of $2,400 per 

lift. In addition to the per-kilogram hydrogen cost, respondents also provided total fuel cell MHE 

fleet costs for hydrogen. These costs ranged from $100 to $300 per month per lift, or an average 

of $2,300 per year, closely tracking the $2,400 cost developed using actual deployment data on 

hydrogen usage. 

Though questionnaire respondents did not provide a lot of depth on electricity costs for battery 

lifts, the reported costs were compared with reported hydrogen usage for comparable fuel cell 

MHE at the deployment site using available literature data on fuel cell and battery efficiency.

Argonne National Laboratory has reported that a Class I fuel cell MHE unit typically provides 15 

kWh of useable energy or work per kilogram of hydrogen.15 At the same time, Argonne reports 

that the typical charging efficiency of a battery charger is 84% and the typical discharge 

efficiency of batteries used in MHE is 76%. Combining these efficiency figures with the reported 

hydrogen use for fuel cell MHE at the deployment sites implies that comparable battery lifts 

would require an average of 550 kWh of electricity per month (ranging from 350 kWh to 1,000 

kWh). At an average electricity rate of 7.5 cents/kWh, this means comparable battery lifts would 

have average annual electricity expenses of $500 per lift truck, which matches the average $500 

per year electricity costs reported in the questionnaire.

2.5 Cost of Infrastructure Warehouse Space

The total cost of ownership analysis also considers the cost of warehouse space and outdoor 

space dedicated to hydrogen infrastructure and battery changing and charging infrastructure. 

Based on responses to the questionnaire, the average cost of indoor warehouse space is 

$3/ft2

/month, with a reported range of $0.50 to $4.80 per square foot per month. Respondents did 

not address the cost of outdoor space, so the cost analysis uses a value of $0.34/ft2

/month, which 

is the cost of leased land at fueling stations used by NREL’s Hydrogen Analysis (H2A) model.16

Respondents reported an average of 5,100 square feet of warehouse space dedicated to battery 

changing and charging, in support of an average fleet size of 97 battery lifts (with warehouse 

space requirements ranging from 2,300 to 8,400 square feet). At an average warehouse cost of 

$3/ft2

/month, this results in an average annual warehouse space cost of $1,900 per battery lift. 

Respondents reported an average of 500 square feet of warehouse space dedicated to hydrogen 

infrastructure, in support of an average fleet size of 58 fuel cell lifts (with warehouse space 

requirements ranging from 200 to 700 square feet). Users also reported an average of 2,500 

square feet of outdoor space dedicated to hydrogen infrastructure, with a range of 500 to 5,000 

square feet. Applying the average costs of warehouse and outdoor space reported above results in 

an average annual infrastructure space cost of $500 per fuel cell lift truck. 

 

15 L.L. Gaines, A. Elgowainy, and M.Q. Wang, “Full Fuel-Cycle Comparison of Forklift Propulsion Systems,” 

Argonne National Laboratory Center for Transportation Research, ANL/ESD/08-3, October 2008. 16 NREL’s H2A Production model is a widely used and transparent techno‐economic analysis tool that calculates the 

dispensed cost of hydrogen based on operating and capital inputs. It is available for download at 

http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/h2a_production.html. 
11 

2.6 Cost of Maintenance for Lift Trucks, Battery Packs, and Fuel Cell 

Systems

Warehouse operators reported an average of $230 per month spent on lift truck maintenance, or 

$2,800 per lift truck each year. This maintenance cost is assumed to be the same for battery lift 

trucks and fuel cell lift trucks. Operators reported an average of $150 per month in maintenance 

costs per battery system. With an average of two battery packs per lift, this results in an annual 

battery pack maintenance cost of $3,600 per lift truck. 

Based on data provided for the fuel cell MHE deployments (particularly from MHE CDP 14), 

fuel cell systems average about 1.5 hours of maintenance per month. To determine labor costs, 

the analysis assumes a labor rate of $80/hour fully burdened, which is the upper end reported 

labor rate for fuel cell system maintenance labor. Available data for parts costs are more limited, 

but based on available data, the analysis assumes that the total parts cost averages half the 

maintenance labor cost. Based on this, the total annual maintenance cost for fuel cell systems is 

$2,200 per lift truck. This calculated maintenance cost using deployment data matches the 

average $2,200 annual per-lift truck maintenance cost reported in the questionnaire.

3 Cost Analysis for Class III Material Handling 

Equipment

A summary of the cost elements contributing to the total cost of ownership of Class III forklifts 

is shown in Figure 4. These cost elements include:

• Cost of the bare forklift 

• Cost of the required battery or fuel cell systems

• Cost of battery changing and charging or hydrogen fueling infrastructure 

• Labor costs of battery changing or hydrogen fueling 

• Cost of energy required by the forklifts

• Cost of facility space for infrastructure (indoor and outdoor) 

• Cost of lift truck maintenance 

• Cost of battery or fuel cell system maintenance. 

The per-lift truck annualized cost calculations for these cost elements and the key input 

parameters affecting these costs are discussed in the sections below. There are a number of key 

parameters that drive these cost elements, which are shown in Figure 5 and Figure 6. 

As noted above, this cost analysis does not attempt to address any changes in productivity 

between facilities operating fuel cell MHE and facilities operating battery MHE. The analysis 

focuses explicitly on costs of operation. As such, the cost of labor to fuel or change batteries for 

MHE are considered, as are the facility space costs of necessary infrastructure, but potential 

productivity gains associated with re-assigning personnel to other tasks or re-purposing 

warehouse space due to smaller infrastructure footprints are not considered.
12 

Total Annualized Costs Per Lift Truck

Cost Element Battery MHE Fuel Cell MHE

Amortized Cost of Lift Truck $1,500 $1,500

Amortized Cost of Battery / Fuel Cell Packs $1,300 $1,300

Per Lift Truck Cost of Charge/Fuel Infrastructure $1,300 $3,700

Labor Cost for Charging and Fueling $3,200 $500

Cost of Electricity / Hydrogen $400 $1,400

Cost of Infrastructure Warehouse Space $1,900 $500

Lift Truck Maintenance $2,400 $2,400

Battery / Fuel Cell Maintenance $400 $500

Total Annual Cost of Forklift $12,400 $11,700

Figure 4. Contributing costs to total cost of ownership of Class III MHE

3.1 Cost of Bare Lift Truck, Battery Packs, and Fuel Cell Systems

Based on feedback from the questionnaire, warehouse operators reported that the cost of a bare 

Class III pallet jack ranged from $6,500 to $9,900 each, with an average cost of $7,800. Users 

reported lift truck lifetimes ranging from 5 to 7 years, with an average lifetime of 5.7 years.

Using these data, the annualized, present value cost of a bare Class III lift truck is $1,500. 

Warehouse operators reported an average cost for a single battery pack of $2,800, with costs 

ranging from $2,200 to $3,500. They further reported a 4.5-year average lifetime for a battery 

pack (ranging from 4 to 5 years). The facilities analyzed operate for 2 shifts per day. To support 

multi-shift operations, an average of two battery packs per lift truck is assumed. Considering the 

cost of two battery packs with an average lifetime of 4.5 years, the annualized, present value of 

battery packs on a per-lift truck basis is $1,300. 

For Class III lifts, operators reported an average cost of $15,000 for a fuel cell system (typically 

<3 kW in size). The federal tax credit available for fuel cell systems, set at the lesser of 

$3,000/kW or 30% of the cost, can offset this average fuel cell system cost by about $4,600. This 

tax credit is assumed to be available and applicable for the purposes of this analysis, though all 

purchasers may not be able to take advantage of it.

Users reported an expected fuel cell lifetime of 9 years (ranging from 8 to 10 years). Because 

hydrogen-based fuel cell systems can be filled quickly compared to the time needed for battery 

charging, users reported an average of one fuel cell system per material handling unit. Similar to 

the analysis of Class I and II MHE, the cost analysis of Class III MHE considers ongoing 

maintenance of the fuel cell system but does not specifically allocate a capital cost for potential 

fuel cell stack replacements during the 9-year lifetime. Considering the cost less the available tax 

credit and a lifetime of 9 years, the annualized, present value of fuel cell systems per lift truck is 

$1,300. If the tax credit is not available, the annualized cost of a fuel cell system rises by $500 to 

a total of $1,800 per year per lift truck. 
13 

Key Parameters for General

And Capital Costs

Class III MHE

Battery Fuel Cell

General

Discount Rate for Capital Purchases 1.5% 1.5%

Operation Days Per Year 340 340

Operation Hours Per Year 3,000 3,000

Average Shifts Per Day 2 2

Size of Combined Class I, II & III Fleet 97 58

Cost of Hydrogen ($/kg) – $8/kg

Lift Truck 

Capital

Capital Cost of Bare Lift Truck $7,800 $7,800

Average Life of Lift Truck (years) 5.7 5.7

Battery & 

Fuel Cell 

Capital

Cost of Batteries (2) / Fuel Cell System $5,600 $15,000

Federal Tax Credits Available – $4,600

Battery / Fuel Cell Systems Per Lift 2 1

Battery / Fuel Cell System Life (years) 4.5 9

Figure 5. General facility and capital cost inputs for Class III MHE17

3.2 Cost of Battery-Charging and Hydrogen Infrastructure

Batteries used in material handling applications can typically only provide adequate power for 

one 8-hour shift, or about 5–6 hours of actual “pedal time,” after which they must be charged and 

allowed to cool down before use. In multi-shift operations, batteries are generally changed out 

each shift. Battery charging infrastructure includes the actual battery chargers but also includes a 

battery charge and change-out area or room, charging stations with charging/cooling racks, hoists 

and cranes used to change batteries, and battery wash and fill stations.

Facility operators reported keeping an average of 1.1 chargers for every battery lift truck 

deployed, with an average charger cost of $1,600. Users reported battery chargers lasting 5 years. 

Based on these data, the present value, annualized cost of chargers reported on a per-lift truck 

basis is $400.

As in the case for Class I lifts, total infrastructure costs also include the equipment costs for the 

racks, hoists, and cranes; periodic refurbishment of changing equipment; amortized construction 

costs for the battery changing and charging room; and maintenance of both the chargers and the 

battery changing equipment. Respondents to the questionnaire did not provide enough depth of 

detail on these battery infrastructure items to estimate annualized costs. These costs were 

estimated to be $900 per lift truck each year, consistent with the estimate for these costs for Class 

I and II battery infrastructure. Together with the equipment costs of the chargers, the total 

present value, annualized cost of battery infrastructure capital and operating and maintenance 

costs is $1,300 per lift truck. 

As described above, the total monthly cost of hydrogen infrastructure ranged from $12,000 to 

$22,000 per site. On an annualized, present value basis, the cost of hydrogen infrastructure 

(including capital, operating, and maintenance costs) is estimated to be $3,700 per lift truck for 

 

17 Figure 5 is taken from NREL CDP MHE 64c, General & Capital Cost Inputs for Class III MHE, 3/29/2012, 

available at http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/proj_fc_market_demo.html. 
14 

Class I, II, and III fuel cell MHE. Once again, this cost estimate is based on an average fleet size 

of 58 fuel cell material handling units. 

3.3 Labor Costs for Battery Changing and Hydrogen Fueling

The cost of ownership analysis includes an estimate of the cost of warehouse labor spent 

changing and charging batteries or spent fueling fuel cell MHE with hydrogen. The labor cost 

analysis considers both the labor time for battery change and charge compared to hydrogen 

fueling time and the travel time and queuing time for the lift truck operator. 

Based on data from the deployments, the Class III MHE are operated 340 days a year, averaging 

3,000 hours of operation per year. (As part of the questionnaire, warehouse facility operators also 

reported an average of 340 days of operation, ranging from 300 to 360 days per year.) Facilities 

operate two shifts each day, and facility managers reported an average loaded labor rate of 

$24/hour for both battery change-out labor and hydrogen fueling labor. 

Respondents reported an average of two battery changes per day for Class III MHE. Travel and 

queuing time for battery lifts averaged 2.8 minutes, and battery changes required an average of 9 

minutes. Based on these data, the annual per-lift truck labor cost for battery changing and 

charging is $3,200, or about $9 per day per lift truck. 

The labor cost analysis for fuel cell MHE used data from questionnaire respondents together with 

data on filling time and frequency collected from the analyzed deployments and analyzed by 

NREL (particularly data from MHE CDPs 6, 8, and 22). Respondents reported an average travel 

and queuing time of 2.8 minutes for filling fuel cell MHE. Based on data from the deployments, 

actual hydrogen fueling time for Class III lifts is 1.6 minutes per fill (compared to a reported 

average hydrogen filling time of 1.1 minutes based on facilities managers' responses to the 

questionnaire). Analyzing the data from the questionnaire and from the fuel cell MHE 

deployments, the annual per-lift truck labor cost for hydrogen fueling is $500, or about $1.50 per 

day per lift truck. 

3.4 Cost of Electricity and Hydrogen

The cost of ownership analysis includes the cost of electric or hydrogen energy needed to operate 

the lifts. Based on feedback from warehouse operators, battery-powered lifts require $400 per 

year on average in electricity costs, per lift truck. Fuel cell MHE fleet operators reported an 

average hydrogen cost of $8/kg (ranging from $5 to $22 per kilogram). Respondents provided an 

average annual cost for hydrogen of $1,400 per lift truck. 
15 

Key Parameters for Infrastructure and

Operations & Maintenance Costs

Class III MHE

Battery Fuel Cell

Battery & 

Hydrogen 

Infrastructure

Capital Cost of Battery Charger $1,600 – 

Average Life of Charger (years) 5 – 

Average Number of Chargers/Lift 1.1 – 

Infrastructure Capital + Maintenance $75/lift/mo. $17,000/mo.

Labor Cost for 

Battery Changes 

& H2 Fueling 

Battery Change / H2 Fill Time (min.) 9 1.6

Lift Travel + Queue Time (min.) 2.8 2.8

Battery Changes / H2 Fills Per Day 2 0.8

Operator Loaded Labor Rate ($/hr.) $24 $24

Warehouse 

Space Cost 

Indoor Space for Infrastructure (ft2) 5,100 ft2 500 ft2

Outdoor Space for Infrastructure (ft2) – 2,500 ft2

Indoor Warehouse Space Cost ($/ft2) $3/ft2 $3/ft2

Outdoor Land Space Cost ($/ft2) – $0.34/ft2

Maintenance Monthly Lift Truck Maintenance $200 $200

Monthly Battery / FC Maintenance $18 $45

Figure 6. Infrastructure and operational cost inputs for Class III MHE18

As in the case for Class I and II lifts, reported electricity costs were compared against reported 

hydrogen usage for comparable fuel cell MHE at the deployment sites using available literature 

data on fuel cell and battery efficiency. Based on the efficiency figures for battery and fuel cell 

MHE discussed above and using reported data on hydrogen usage for comparable Class III fuel 

cell MHE, battery lifts are expected to have annual electricity expenses of $300 per lift truck. 

3.5 Cost of Infrastructure Warehouse Space

Cost of ownership calculations for the cost of warehouse space discussed above do not 

differentiate between the infrastructure needs of Class I/II MHE and the infrastructure needs of 

Class III MHE. Thus, the cost of warehouse space for Class III lifts is assumed to be the same as 

reported for Class I/II lifts. That is, battery lifts incur warehouse space costs for battery changing 

and charging infrastructure of $1,900 per lift truck per year. Fuel cell lifts incur warehouse space 

costs for hydrogen infrastructure of $500 per lift truck per year. 

3.6 Cost of Maintenance for Lift Trucks, Battery Packs, and Fuel Cell 

Systems

An average of $200 per month is assumed to be spent on lift truck maintenance (not including 

maintenance of the battery and fuel cell systems), based on responses to the questionnaire and 

 

18 Figure 6 is taken from NREL CDP MHE 64d, Infrastructure & Operation Costs for Class III MHE, 3/29/2012, 

available at http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/proj_fc_market_demo.html. 
16 

available literature. This equates to an annual lift truck maintenance cost of $2,400 per lift truck. 

This maintenance cost is assumed to be the same for battery lift trucks and fuel cell lift trucks.

Operators reported an average $200 per year in maintenance costs per battery system. With an 

average of two battery packs per lift, this results in an annual battery pack maintenance cost of 

$400 per lift truck. 

Based on data provided for the fuel cell MHE deployments (particularly from MHE CDP 14), 

fuel cell systems averaged about 4.5 hours of maintenance per year. Using an assumed labor rate 

of $80/hour fully burdened and accounting for parts costs as described above, the total annual 

maintenance cost for Class III fuel cell systems is $500 per lift truck. This calculated 

maintenance cost using deployment data tracks the average $440 annual per-lift truck 

maintenance cost reported in the questionnaire. 
17 

4 Total Cost of Ownership Results

The deployments of fuel cell MHE analyzed in this study have supplied a rich source of data for 

NREL to analyze to better understand the operation and performance of fuel cells used in 

material handling applications. In total, more than 600 fuel cell MHE units were deployed in 

eight commercial facilities and two government-operated warehouses. These fuel cell MHE 

accumulated more than 1.4 million hours of operation and used 160,000 kg of hydrogen 

dispensed over 245,000 filling events. Using this detailed set of data combined with responses 

from facility managers of seven of the deployment sites, NREL developed cost of ownership 

estimates for fuel cell MHE and compared them to the cost of battery-operated MHE. 

Figure 7 shows the results of the total cost of ownership assessment of Class I and II MHE for 

both battery lifts and fuel cell lifts. The fuel cell MHE deployments characterized in this cost 

analysis included an average of nearly 60 fuel cell material handling units per site, with facilities 

operating two to three shifts per day. Under these conditions, fuel cell MHE are predicted to have 

a lower total cost of ownership than their comparable battery-powered counterparts. Overall, 

NREL found that for Class I and II forklifts used in multi-shift operations, fuel cells could reduce 

the overall cost of ownership by 10%, from $19,700 per year per lift truck to $17,800 per year 

per lift truck. 

Breaking down the total cost of ownership provides insight into the relative advantages and 

disadvantages of fuel cell MHE. The costs of hydrogen infrastructure and hydrogen fuel are far 

greater than the comparable costs for electricity and battery infrastructure, with annual per-lift 

truck infrastructure costs of $3,700 for fuel cell MHE compared to $1,400 for battery MHE and 

annual energy costs of $2,400 for hydrogen compared to only $500 for electricity. However, 

these higher fuel and infrastructure costs are more than offset by the lower labor costs for 

hydrogen fueling compared to battery changing and charging and by the lower cost of warehouse 

space dedicated to infrastructure. Labor costs for hydrogen fueling of fuel cell MHE are only 

$800 per year, compared to $4,400 for labor for changing out batteries on battery MHE. Battery 

MHE incur $1,900 in facility space costs compared to only $500 for fuel cell MHE, in part 

because hydrogen infrastructure can be located outside instead of taking up more valuable indoor 

warehouse space as is the case for battery charging infrastructure. As noted previously, hydrogen 

infrastructure costs (reported here based on the average fleet size of 58 fuel cell lifts) vary 

inversely based on fleet size, while battery infrastructure costs vary in proportion to battery fleet 

size. As such, the cost differential for infrastructure for fuel cell and battery MHE narrows as 

fleet sizes increase. 

Based on data collected from the deployments and feedback from the distributed questionnaire, it 

also appears that fuel cell systems used in Class I and II MHE incur lower maintenance costs 

relative to battery systems, mainly due to the fact that only one fuel cell system per lift truck is 

needed for multi-shift material handling operations while two or three battery packs are required 

per lift truck to support multi-shift operations. The annualized equipment costs of fuel cell 

systems are slightly greater than the annualized costs for batteries, even accounting for fewer 

systems per lift truck and a longer expected lifetime, but the expected maintenance savings more 

than offset the higher annualized purchase cost. As noted previously, the annualized cost of fuel 

cell systems reflects the availability of a federal tax credit for fuel cells. Without this tax credit, 

the annual cost of the fuel cell system increases by $1,100 per lift.
18 

Figure 7. Total annual cost of ownership of Class I and II battery and fuel cell MHE

Figure 8 shows the comparable total cost of ownership results for Class III MHE. Overall, Class 

III lifts have lower cost of ownership than Class I and II lifts, reflecting both lower capital costs 

for the lift truck and power pack (battery or fuel cell) and lower operating and maintenance costs. 

Similar to Class I and II forklifts, fuel cell-powered Class III lifts are expected to have a lower 

total cost of ownership compared to battery-powered units in multiple-shift warehouse facilities 

that deploy a large number of lifts. NREL’s analysis found that the cost of ownership of Class III 

pallet jacks can be reduced by 5%, from $12,400 per year to $11,700 per year for each lift. Once 

again, higher hydrogen infrastructure and hydrogen fuel costs are more than offset by labor cost 

savings and warehouse space cost savings for infrastructure (though battery pack maintenance 

and fuel cell maintenance costs are expected to be more comparable for Class III lifts than they 

were for Class I and II lifts). The cost of ownership results for Class III MHE show similar 

differential costs for hydrogen infrastructure compared to battery infrastructure, but fuel cell 

MHE require only $500 in labor costs for hydrogen fueling compared to $3,200 for battery 

changes, and Class III fuel cell MHE again show significant savings for facility space costs for 

infrastructure ($500 per year for fuel cell MHE compared to $1,900 for battery MHE). 
19 

Figure 8. Total annual cost of ownership of Class III battery and fuel cell MHE

Based on the extent of data available for this cost assessment and to limit the scope of the 

analysis to reflect the mandate of this research project, this cost evaluation considers the costs of 

operating fuel cell MHE compared to the costs of operating comparable battery MHE. The 

evaluation does not attempt to assess potential changes in the productivity of the warehouse 

distribution center deploying fuel cell or battery MHE, and more broadly does not attempt to 

consider additional sales or profits that might be seen by the company operating the warehouse 

facilities. As such, it is not possible to evaluate fuel cell MHE on a net present value basis. This 

would require an evaluation of incoming revenues or cash flows and outgoing expenditures, 

which the partner companies hold very closely and would likely not be able to share with NREL. 

For this analysis, costs of operation are discussed in present value terms, based on the average 

costs on an annualized basis considering both capital and operating costs. An additional metric 

would be to consider a payback period. In the case of fuel cell MHE, a payback period 

assessment is not based on incoming revenues offsetting initial capital expenditures, but rather it

describes the time it would take for an investment in fuel cell MHE to lead to reduced costs 

compared to a decision to instead deploy comparable battery MHE. Using the data on the costs 

of operating and maintaining fuel cell and battery propulsion systems together with the costs and 

timing for necessary equipment replacements, a payback period for fuel cell MHE purchases can 

be estimated relative to battery MHE ownership.
20 

Using the findings of this cost analysis, for Class I, II and III MHE, deploying fuel cell MHE 

instead of battery MHE would lead to lower overall expenditures in the fifth year of operation, 

when battery MHE would require a replacement of battery systems at the end of their useful life 

(estimated at 4.4 years for Class I and II and 4.5 years for Class III batteries). As discussed 

above, this payback analysis only considers the relative costs of operation of fuel cell and battery 

MHE; it does not take into account any potential benefits such as improved warehouse 

productivity. 
21 

5 Total Cost of Ownership Sensitivity Analysis

In conjunction with the MHE cost of ownership analysis, sensitivity analyses were conducted to 

better understand the effect of various input parameters on the total cost of ownership and to 

account for data uncertainty. The sensitivity analyses show the ranges in annual per-lift truck 

cost of ownership for both battery and fuel cell MHE resulting from varying key parameters that 

affect cost.

To conduct the sensitivity analyses, one input parameter is varied while all others remain at their 

nominal value. Figure 9 shows the nominal values and the lower value and upper value 

sensitivity ranges of key input parameters affecting total cost of ownership of Class I/II and 

Class III MHE. 

Figure 9. Total cost sensitivity analysis data ranges
22 

5.1 Sensitivity Analysis for Class I and II Material Handling 

Equipment

Figure 10 shows the total cost sensitivity for Class I and II MHE. For fuel cell MHE, the 

discount range applied, the cost of fuel cell system maintenance, the life of the fuel cell system, 

and the size of the fuel cell MHE fleet have the largest effect on the resulting total cost of 

ownership. For battery MHE, the maintenance costs, the number of battery changes and charges 

per day, and the battery change time have the largest effect on the resulting cost of ownership. 

Figure 10. Total cost of ownership sensitivity analysis results for Class I & II MHE19

 

19 Figure 10 is taken from NREL CDP MHE 59, Total Cost Sensitivity, 3/29/2012, available at 

http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/proj_fc_market_demo.html. 
23 

The input parameter sensitivity analysis indicates that total fuel cell MHE cost of ownership 

generally is expected to be less than the total battery MHE cost of ownership. While fuel cell 

lifetime and maintenance costs are large drivers of total cost, unless fuel cell life and 

maintenance costs worsen relative to battery lifts (or costs are being over- or under-estimated), 

the total cost of fuel cell forklift ownership continues to track lower than the total cost of battery 

forklift ownership. 

As long as fuel cell MHE fleets are large enough to help minimize the per-lift truck cost of 

hydrogen infrastructure, and as long as the facility operates multiple shifts with the need for 

multiple battery changes, total fuel cell MHE costs appear to stay below the total cost of 

deploying battery MHE. The sensitivity analysis shows that with only one battery change per 

day, the total cost of ownership of battery lifts is less than that of comparable fuel cell lifts. In 

fact, the total annual cost of ownership falls to nearly $16,000 per year for battery lifts if these 

lifts are deployed for only a single shift per day and the batteries are charged in the lift truck

(thus requiring zero battery changes per day). 

Unfortunately, not enough detailed data were available from these fuel cell MHE deployments to 

fully understand the impact of fuel cell fleet size on per-unit annualized costs, and particularly 

what might be considered the minimum fleet size needed to attain a positive cost differential 

compared to battery MHE. Fuel cell MHE require supporting hydrogen infrastructure. Though 

the extent of this hydrogen infrastructure can vary based on the number of units deployed and 

their intensity of use (e.g., number of shifts operated per day), the requirement for hydrogen 

infrastructure represents a significant investment. The sensitivity analysis only assessed a lower 

bound of 30 fuel cell forklifts deployed per site. Further investigation is required to understand 

how fleets of fuel cell MHE with fewer than 30 lifts per site compare to battery lifts on a cost 

basis, as high hydrogen infrastructure costs would be spread out over fewer fuel cell MHE units. 

5.2 Sensitivity Analysis for Class III Material Handling Equipment

Figure 11 shows the results of the total cost of ownership sensitivity analysis conducted for Class 

III fuel cell MHE. As in the case with Class I and II MHE, the discount rate applied and the life 

of the fuel cell system have a large effect on the estimated annual cost of ownership of a fuel cell 

lift. However, for Class III MHE, fuel cell maintenance costs have a lesser effect on the total 

cost, and the size of the forklift fleet and the cost of hydrogen infrastructure have a greater effect.

This is a result of the lower overall cost of maintenance for Class III fuel cell systems and the 

greater proportion of cost that hydrogen infrastructure represents in the total cost figure (since 

forklift and fuel cell system equipment and maintenance costs are less). 
24 

Figure 11. Total cost of ownership sensitivity analysis results for Class III MHE20

As in the case of Class I and II lifts, the total cost of ownership of Class III battery lifts is most 

sensitive to the number of battery changes per day and the time needed to complete a battery 

change. The sensitivity analysis for Class III MHE also shows that the intensity of the MHE 

deployment scenario is a defining factor in whether fuel cell MHE will have a lower total cost of 

ownership compared to battery lifts. As noted, the high and relatively static costs for hydrogen 

infrastructure play a more prominent role in the total cost of ownership of Class III MHE

because the equipment costs and maintenance costs for both the bare Class III lift truck and the 

Class III power pack (battery vs. fuel cell) are less.

The sensitivity analysis for Class III MHE shows that total cost of ownership can swing in favor 

of batteries over fuel cell systems when fewer Class III lifts are deployed in the fleet (as there are 

fewer lifts to amortize the cost of hydrogen infrastructure), when there is only one battery change 

per day (or zero in the case of in-lift truck battery charging), and when there are fewer operation 

days per year.

 

20 Figure 11 is taken from NREL CDP MHE 59, Total Cost Sensitivity, 3/29/2012, available at 

http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/proj_fc_market_demo.html. 
25 

6 Intensive Deployment Scenario Cost Analysis

In addition to the cost sensitivity analysis, a scenario of an intensive MHE deployment was 

modeled to further evaluate the sensitivity of the total cost findings to changes to specific input 

parameters. The deployments that served as the basis for the total cost of ownership assessment 

represent a high utilization of material handling equipment. To better understand the effects of 

heavy usage on MHE cost of ownership, total costs were estimated for a more extreme material 

handling scenario. 

The intensive deployment scenario modeled a material handling operation that: 

• Deployed 100 forklifts 

• Operated for 350 days each year 

• Operated 3 shifts per day 

• Logged 3,000 hours of operation per year on each lift. 

The total cost assessment for the intensive deployment scenario uses the same methodology and 

data as the original total cost assessment, with a number of changes reflecting the more intensive 

usage patterns of this scenario. In particular:

• The average lifetimes in years of lift trucks, batteries, chargers, and fuel cell systems 

were lowered to reflect the greater number of annual operation hours. 

• The average number of battery systems per lift truck was increased to three, reflecting the 

total number of shifts per day. 

• The average number of daily battery changes and hydrogen fills and the average energy 

costs increased, reflecting the greater number of annual operation hours. 

• Lift truck, battery, and fuel cell maintenance costs increased, reflecting more intensive 

usage. 

• The cost of hydrogen infrastructure increased on a per-site basis, reflecting the greater 

number of fuel cell lifts deployed (though per-lift truck hydrogen infrastructure costs 

dropped, reflecting economies-of-scale cost improvements). 

The results of the intensive scenario cost assessment are shown in Figure 12 (see Figure 7 for 

color key). Considering the lifetime costs of material handling equipment on an annualized, 

present value basis, fuel cell MHE provide even greater cost savings relative to battery MHE 

than was modeled in the original total cost assessment based on the analyzed deployments. Fuel 

cell MHE enjoy a greater cost advantage compared to battery MHE in intensive deployment 

scenarios due to lower fuel cell equipment costs compared to battery costs and lower labor costs 

for hydrogen fueling compared to labor for battery changes (which is higher due to the greater 

number of battery packs and battery changes required to meet intensive deployment demands). 

The relative cost advantages for fuel cell maintenance and lifetime compared to battery 

maintenance and lifetime further widen the gap in favor of fuel cell MHE in intensive 

deployments. 
26 

Figure 12. Total annual cost of ownership for MHE deployed in an intensive deployment scenario21

 

21 Figure 12 is taken from NREL CDP MHE 60, MHE Intensive Deployment Total Cost, 3/29/2012, available at 

http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/proj_fc_market_demo.html. 
27 

7 Conclusions

This study leverages DOE’s co-funding of fuel cell systems in the emerging market of fuel cell 

material handling equipment. With DOE’s sponsorship, commercial warehousing and material 

handling facilities provided data on costs, operation, and performance of material handling 

equipment and NREL analyzed these data to develop an independent evaluation of the costs of 

operating fuel cell MHE. NREL’s total cost assessment shows that for fairly intensive warehouse 

and distribution applications—in the case studied, a deployment of about 60 fuel cell lifts for 2–3 

shifts per day, 6–7 days per week—fuel cell-powered MHE can have a lower total cost of 

ownership than comparable battery lifts. Fuel cells are predicted to have a lower cost of 

ownership compared to traditional battery lifts in both Class I/II and Class III material handling 

equipment. 

NREL found that for Class I and II forklifts used in multi-shift operations, fuel cells could reduce 

the overall cost of ownership by 10%, from $19,700 per year per lift truck to $17,800 per year 

per lift truck. The cost of ownership of Class III forklifts can be reduced by 5%, from $12,400 

per year to $11,700 per year for each lift truck. While fuel cell MHE have higher costs for 

hydrogen fuel and hydrogen infrastructure compared to the energy and infrastructure needs for 

battery MHE, fuel cell MHE can yield significant savings in labor costs and facility space costs. 

For Class I and II MHE, fuel cells can lower annual per-lift truck labor costs from $4,400 for 

battery change and charging to only $800 for hydrogen fueling and can lower annual facility 

space costs from $1,900 to $500 (Class III MHE annual labor costs can be reduced from $3,200 

to $500).22 

The sensitivity analyses and the cost analysis of a more intensive material handling scenario, 

with 100 forklifts deployed for three shifts per day, show that even larger cost savings can be 

realized by deploying fuel cell MHE instead of traditional battery-powered MHE in very 

intensive material handling applications. NREL’s cost analysis of such an intensive material 

handling operation shows that costs can be reduced by almost 25% by choosing fuel cell MHE 

over battery MHE, with annual costs of Class I and II fuel cell MHE dropping to $21,000 per lift 

truck compared to $27,300 for battery MHE. Annual costs for Class III fuel cell MHE can drop 

over 20% in an intensive material handling operation, with annual fuel cell MHE costs of 

$11,600 compared to $14,800 for battery pallet jacks. 

In terms of equipment costs, fuel cell systems are more expensive than battery systems, but 

considering the longer predicted life of the fuel cell systems and the need for multiple battery 

packs per lift truck in multi-shift warehousing operations, the total annualized equipment costs of 

fuel cell systems are comparable to those of batteries for Class I, II, and III MHE. The costs of 

hydrogen fuel and especially hydrogen fueling infrastructure are both higher than the comparable 

electricity and battery changing/charging infrastructure costs. For the deployments characterized

in this study, these higher costs are more than offset by lower labor costs for hydrogen fueling 

compared to battery changing and charging and by lower warehouse space costs for hydrogen 

 

22 These cost of ownership results have previously been published by NREL as composite data products (CDPs). As 

part of the CDP publication process, the cost of ownership CDPs and their results have been reviewed and approved 

by participants in the government-sponsored deployments, including representatives from Plug Power, Nuvera Fuel 

Cells, and Hydrogenics Corporation, the companies that provided fuel cell systems for the material handling 

equipment.
28 

infrastructure compared to battery changing infrastructure (mainly due to the fact that much of 

the hydrogen infrastructure can be sited outside where space costs are less).

The sensitivity analyses indicate that intensity of the MHE deployment is the largest driving 

factor in whether fuel cell MHE will have a lower cost of ownership compared to battery MHE.

The significant labor savings of hydrogen fueling over battery changes is lost if facility 

operations only require one battery change per day (or no changes, in the case of in-lift truck 

battery charging). Based on this cost assessment and the accompanying sensitivity analysis, it 

appears unlikely that fuel cell MHE will have a total cost of ownership advantage over battery 

lifts in facilities that only operate for one shift per day.

Based on the sensitivity analysis, the number of operation days per year and particularly the 

number of MHE units deployed in a facility can also greatly affect whether the use of fuel cell 

MHE instead of battery MHE is a cost effective choice. Class III MHE especially do not appear 

to be good candidates for using fuel cells in place of batteries unless a sufficient number of 

forklifts are deployed. This results mainly from the higher proportional cost that hydrogen 

infrastructure represents in the total cost of ownership of Class III MHE. For example, a 

deployment at the studied forklift deployment level of 60 units favored fuel cell lifts over battery 

lifts, but deployments of only 30 Class III fuel cell lifts were not predicted to result in overall 

cost savings compared to battery lifts. For Class I and II MHE, deployments of as few as 30 fuel 

cell forklifts appear to provide cost savings over battery lifts as long as facilities operate for two 

or more shifts per day and six or seven days per week. Further analysis is required to determine 

the break-even point for fuel cell MHE over battery MHE in terms of the number of units 

deployed. 

NREL’s cost analysis assumes fuel cell MHE will receive a federal tax credit available for fuel 

cell systems. Even without the federal tax credit, the evaluation shows that fuel cell MHE have a 

lower cost of ownership compared to battery lifts, though cost savings are reduced.

23 It is also 

important to note that NREL’s evaluation only considered costs of operation. Potential changes 

in facility productivity and any benefits in terms of higher throughput and increased profitability 

have not been addressed. The cost evaluation also assumed constant equipment costs in realdollar terms. As fuel cells in material handling equipment are in the early stages of 

commercialization, the cost of fuel cell systems may be expected to decline over time. The 

assessment of the overall benefits of fuel cell MHE may show increased improvement over 

battery-powered MHE as potential productivity gains are evaluated and as the market for fuel 

cell MHE matures.

 

23 Class I and II fuel cell forklifts will incur $1,100 per year in additional costs without the tax credit, reducing the 

annual per-lift truck savings to $800 compared to battery forklifts. Class III fuel cell forklifts will incur $500 in 

additional annual costs without the tax credit, reducing the annual per-lift truck savings to $200 compared to 

comparable battery forklifts.
29 

Appendix

NREL’s Technology Validation group has participated in a variety of projects to assess the realworld performance of fuel cell systems and the related hydrogen fueling infrastructure. 

Demonstration and validation projects have included assessments of fuel cell electric vehicles, 

fuel cell buses, fuel cell powered material handling equipment, and fuel cell backup power. 

Working in collaboration with industry project partners, NREL acts as the central data repository 

for the data collected from these fuel cell demonstration projects, including the DOD- and DOEsponsored fuel cell MHE deployments. To protect proprietary and business-sensitive data that 

have been supplied by industry partners, NREL established a Hydrogen Secure Data Center 

(HSDC) to house sensitive data and enable data analysis (see Figure A-1). 

While the raw data are protected by NREL in its HSDC, in-depth analyses allow the data to be 

aggregated into high-level, publicly available results called “composite data products” (CDPs) 

that show the status and performance of hydrogen and fuel cell technologies without identifying 

individual companies or their performance. These CDPs report on the progress of the technology 

and the deployment projects, focusing on the most significant results. In addition to these 

publicly available aggregated results, detailed data products (DDPs) that identify individual 

company contributions to CDPs are developed for and provided to each company based on their 

specific data. These DDPs identify individual contributions to CDPs and are intended to assist 

companies as they refine and improve fuel cell technologies but are not made available to the 

public. 

Figure A-1. NREL’s aggregated data analysis using the HSDC